Dr O E Guttentag of the University of California Medical School, wrote in ‘Science' (1953, 117, p 207) "Experiments on the sick, which are of no immediate value to them but which are made to confirm or dispute some doubtful of suggestive biological generalization, have recently become more and more extensive."

In the Italian journal ‘Animali e Natura' (June 1972), Dr Alda Antonaz cited several cases of human experimentation in Italy. For example, in a Naples hospital, concentrated solutions of cortisone were placed in the eyes of 20 women, who were hospitalised for other diseases, in order to ‘study' the formation of an experimental cataract. Thus, an attempt was made to cause almost total loss of eyesight. In Rome, an attempt was made to cause experimental paralysis to a group of women hospitalised for various diseases.

MENTAL DEFECTIVES

Often from state-run homes, these children are ‘available'. Experiments are conducted on them not for the children's well-being but for the benefit of the experimenters.

MENTALLY ILL

In Time magazine, April 23 1979, under the title "Surgery in the Asylum", we read that "The allegations sounded like excerpts from the script of ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' . . . between 25 and 100 patients in Illinois Manteno Mental Health Center underwent ‘unauthorised and secret' experimental surgery in the 1950s and 60s at the University of Chicago Billings Hospital. The surgery removed their adrenal glands, which produce cortisone and other hormones. The supervising surgeon: Dr Charles B Huggins, 77, winner of a Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on hormonal treatment of cancer."

Thus is the Nobel Prize diminished and made contemptible.

THE AGED

The Sunday Express, November 22 1959, gave details of experiments in a mental home in Gloucester on old women who were so senile that they were described as ‘cabbage-like'. They were given convulsions to see if the brain could be jarred enough to make it start working again - but the results were so bad that the experiment was stopped.

TRAMPS

As revealed on the UK website ‘NHS-exposed.com', about surgeon Mr Andrew William Hall, FRCS (in the UK, surgeons are titled ‘Mr' and not ‘Dr'): "Mr Andrew Hall holds a prime position within the heart of the GMC and the Royal College of Surgeons. A source who is a doctor said "It is a one-off for Mr Andrew Hall, everyone accepts that tramps were used at London hospitals to do experimental operations, that is because tramps have no relatives to fight for them. It is accepted practise, someone has to die to the overall good."

 Those last eight words expose utilitarian bioethicism, as espoused by Peter Singer et al. Whose ‘overall good'? Who decides what ‘good' is? How do we know that a good end will result from vile means? Who decides whether we are to be the beneficiary or the victim? How do they reach those decisions? Based on IQ? Based on state of health? Based on age? Based on whether you are lesbian/gay/woman/man/child/race/old/uneducated? How often will such decisions be changed to suit current requirements?

RACIAL

Poor, uneducated blacks in Alabama were recruited through local clinics for a study lasting 40 years; a proven remedy for syphilis was withheld from them in order "to study the effects of syphilis on the human body". (TIME magazine, Feb 7, 1975)

Some Turks, Indonesians, Pakistanis,Latin Americans, many driven almost to suicide by the inhuman way they are treated in some industries, find it less tiring but more deadly(!) in certain pharmaceutical industries.

There was also the experimental eugenics program in Nazi Germany. Himmler had read a number of racist pamphlets, and decided that ‘unwanted plants' should be culled. Himmler had run a chicken farm, and he wanted to improve human as well as animal stock. Fritz Redlich wrote (Hitler: Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet, 1999) that "this interest in breeding and killing chickens was transferred to the breeding and killing of humans". (The Americans had got to eugenics earlier: enforced sterilisation of criminals both as a punishment and a way to prevent further crime until 1899; after that they used vasectomy.)

THE ARMED FORCES

In the UK, the infamous Porton Down carried out experiments on servicemen and the general public. In "Porton Down: the terrible secret" Mgr John Barry says ". . . there is a certain section of the Ministry of Defence which uses elderly people as guinea pigs for experiments and quietly puts them to death afterwards. It is carefully hidden by the Official Secrets Act."

The US Army admitted to having sponsored LSD tests on about 800 civilians in the 1950s (Associated Press report, July 22 1975). This hallucinogenic drug was also being tested on monkeys and cats at Tulane University during the same period - tests also sponsored by the US Army.

How precious were the lives of our servicemen - so precious that they were given a cocktail of dangerous chemicals during the Gulf War. Gulf War troops were asked to wear a flea-collar containing an organophosphate insecticide named diazinon for two weeks. The troops' bedding was sprayed every other day with a similar insecticide; they had to take NAPs tablets containing pyridostigmine bromide, which has now been admitted to enhance the effect of OPs.

Professor Malcolm Hooper, emeritus professor of medicinal chemistry at UK's University of Sunderland, said there was a toxic onslaught of mind-bending dimensions on veterans, the people and the environment of the Gulf War region including a range of insecticides including organophosphates, organochlorines - both of which are long-lived. Sulphur mustard has been detected in the soil. Professor Hooper says that exposures were from nerve agents, mustard gases/agents, lewisite, an organo-arsenical compound, and hydrogen cyanide, phosgene and its derivatives.

The returned veterans are paying with their health and very lives, as indeed are the Iraqi people - babies born without eyes; internal organs adhering to the stomach and back; foreshortened limbs; no genitalia; no brain; no nose; no trachea; no head - and their environment.

 "For the good of mankind", eh? "To save human life", eh? "The life of a dog or a human", eh? These chemicals were declared 'safe' for such use by the manufacturers after animal testing which, of course, protects the manufacturers legally, whether the non-human animal test results 'proved' negative, positive, or unknown. These troops were being recklessly experimented on.

A subsequent report on the 1991 Gulf War suggests that the British Ministry of Defence Medical Assessment Program is subject to "crass ignorance, gross incompetence or calculated deception". Professor Hooper said "There is no concern with diagnosis or treatment of Gulf War veterans - the research (which is being undertaken on marmosets) will throw no light on Gulf War illness". The precious lives of somebody's loved ones, the Gulf War veterans, have been taken at the rate of one a week since the end of the Gulf War. Studies by the MOD and US Department of Defence dismissing health detriments resulting from the oil-well fires are "bad science, flawed, and amount to a cover-up".

These, our servicemen, didn't die in battle, they were disabled and/or died slowly from poisoning at the ruthless hand of our animal researchers/human experimentation ‘scientists'.

PRISONERS

In Nazi Germany, experiments had been tried on prisoners even before WW2.

The German doctors tried in Nuremberg by the Allied Court (including British and American prosecutors) for experimenting on prisoners explained that since they had practiced animal vivisection, it was ‘logical' that they wanted to experiment on human beings as well. In 1940, 400 prisoners in Chicago were infected with malaria. Nazi doctors cited this study at their trial in Nuremberg to defend their own actions during the Holocaust. Three hundred concentration camp prisoners were to reveal the secrets of survival in freezing water and resuscitation techniques; anaesthetics were not used as they interfered with the results. Prisoners screamed as parts of their bodies froze (so they had not been de-vocalised?). But so what? The experimenters were well used to the screams of their animal victims. The doctors who took part were hitherto respected physicians.

During WW2, the German industrial giant IG Farben bought - yes, bought - 150 women from Auschwitz concentration camp. In letters to the camp they said "We acknowledge receipt of 150 women . . ." ". . . The trials have been carried out. All test subjects have died. We will be in touch with you shortly in regard to another delivery."

.During WW2, Japanese experimenters were allowed to treat their human victims in any way they wished and believed their actions were necessary and noble. Just like human and animal experimenters everywhere.

Prisoners of the Japanese in WW2 were regarded as ‘logs' (maruta). Many victims were eventually killed in Japanese biological warfare experiments, which included using massive doses of plague, anthrax and smallpox germs; some prisoners were killed by radiation poisoning, or pumping victims full of horse blood, or cutting them up while still alive. Some of the known 3000 human ‘logs' were US prisoners of war. According to the International Herald Tribune of November 2 1981, the US military establishment made a secret arrangement with the Japanese to hide the experiments, including arguing in favour of granting the Japanese experimenters immunity from war crimes prosecution so that the US could make use of the results from the tests. Why? Weren't their animal tests any good then? The US, and probably the British, also took the German camps' experimental work material. Makes a farce of the Nuremberg trials, doesn't it?

In 1946, US patients in VA hospitals were used as guinea pigs. To allay suspicions the word ‘experiments' was changed to ‘investigations' or ‘observations'. Vivisection/experimental research is littered with such euphemisms. Be on the alert.

GENERAL PUBLIC

There were secret germ warfare tests on the people of Norwich, UK, in 1963 and 1964, tests of ‘harmless' material in eastern England, even in the London underground. If the tests were ‘harmless' why bother with them? Why, then, the secrecy for decades before they were revealed? In the US and Australia citizens were innocent victims of secret radiation experiments during the Cold War.

The above are just a few examples of tests made on human beings. There are now quite a few books and websites which will tell you about these in detail, and about many others not mentioned here.

The next section is also included under "General public" - most people take medicine at one time or another.

PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS

The most widespread experiments (so far as we know) are those carried out with pharmaceuticals, mainly to determine the toxicity of new drugs. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, adverse drug reactions are the 4th leading cause of death in America. Reactions to prescription and over-the-counter medications kill far more people annually than all illegal drug use combined.

Animal testing did not have the health-giving outcome for humans in the case of Thalidomide, a drug force-fed to many species and strains of animal. Thalidomide came to be an experiment on man, as all drugs are when they have not been scientifically tested.

A Dr R Green wrote: "We must face that fact that the most careful tests of a new drug's effect on animals may tell us little of its effects on humans . . . There are no drugs which do good which do not sometimes cause harm. Animal experiments cannot obviate the risk and may even prevent the use of excellent substances . . .". Precisely. So where are the excellent substances which have been tested on volunteers (animals are not volunteers) giving informed consent? Where are these excellent substances? Dr Green wrote the above in the Lancet, Sept 1 1962.

The corrupt and greedy corporate-led pseudo-science of testing animals, who don't smoke, for nicotine-induced cancers, was just ridiculous: from the 18th century there were millions of human examples, live and dead, showing what tobacco smoke did to the human body. All anyone had to do was read the statistics, the controlled population studies: that's presumably what they are there for. You did not need to have a science degree to understand those telling figures. No experiments on man or beast were required. So-called 'safe' 'validated' drugs are recalled week after week because a drug is not tested for human use until humans have used it. Animal-tested drugs prove safe on average 15% of the time. So if you really value your life you should only take medicine that has been around for at least 5 years without problems. New medicine? New human guinea-pig.

Validation - While several studies have been conducted to validate NON-animal toxicity testing methods such as in vitro tests, against classical animal tests, the latter have never been formally validated. In other words, it has never been scientifically shown that animal tests could be used to establish qualitative or quantitative carcinogenic risk for humans. The current animal-based testing system could not be validated, David Salsburg of Pfizer Central Research found, after making the attempt.

As animal models for human reactions to medications do not exist - a fact which the vivisection fraternity haven't caught up with yet, poor witless souls - we are still the guinea pigs.

Dec 18 2004, The Times: " . . . a leading arthritis drug was linked with heart problems and a promising cancer drug flopped in a clinical trial." The first drug is Celebrex (celecoxib) from Pfizer, and the second drug is Iressa (from AstraZeneca) - found to be no better than a placebo." This after years of testing on animals and heaps of money laid out on the drugs' success. What a tremendous waste of lives, time, money and effort.

Feb 2, 2005, The Times: "Records from Merck . . .forced to withdraw Vioxx . . . show that a committee monitoring its safety in a clinical trial had early data suggesting users could be at increased risk of heart problems after as little as four months."

From The Independent, 18 Feb 2005: "European health regulators yesterday warned doctors not to prescribe certain controversial painkillers made by the pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Merck to patients with a history of heart disease . . .Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra and Merck's Arcoxia should not be given . . . All three belong to the class of drug known as Cox-2 inhibitors, over which there is mounting concern that they increase the risk of heart problems in patients . . ."

This sort of news must be familiar to you, readers. But, you say, surely the clinical trials should make drugs safe for us? No, obviously they don't. The three human clinical trials (phases I, II, & III) are flimsy, with lax guidelines, but sound important. And what they amount to is - after the much-touted animal testing For Our Safety - that it is we who are being experimented upon.

Here's a quote from "Secrets of the Drug Industry", by Bryan Hubbard (2002): . . . the Medicines Control Agency prides itself on being the fastest regulator in Europe, granting a licence on average within 70 days, so making Britons the world's guinea pigs . . . A number of drugs are also granted licences in the UK while being rejected or delayed a licence in the US. One example of this was the drug Centoxin . . .

Sometimes trials are not what they seem. One, which was testing an experimental cancer drug, resulted in the deaths of a number of patients. The drug company was paying the researchers involved for the number of patients they could ‘recruit' to the trial.

Presumably, the extent of the risk was never explained to the volunteers who took part in the fatal test. In another trial, a healthy 18-year-old student died because of an experimental drug. Her family had not been told that the principal research scientist stood to profit if the drug had worked. One early-stage trial, involving a group of university students, was for a drug laced with an industrial pollutant . .. none of the students had been told . . . nor told that the manufacturer was already being sued over the safety of the drug they were being asked to test. . . .

In another test . . . the manufacturer hid data showing that the drug could cause liver failure. The drug was . . . granted a licence, but was withdrawn when it was suspected of causing the deaths of 391 patients."

In America the FDA prints its reasons for granting a licence, and the information is freely available to the general public. In the UK, it is all secrecy and fear of exposure. No government minister or official can reveal any information to the public that it finds out about a drug company or its research (see Section 118 of the 1968 Medicines Act). This Act is a blanket ban on all information, including that which the public ought to know, eg adverse drug reactions, deaths caused by the drug or types of drugs, good or bad. And it is the pharmaceutical industry itself  which insists on this ban in the UK, even though the information may be freely available in the USA. Is our government nuts, or what? How DARE they glue themselves to, and obey, the pharmaceutical industry; lecture us on health matters, yet ensure that we know nothing about the drugs we may have to take? For that matter, are WE nuts to let them get away with it?

We are guinea pigs indeed. And that includes vaccinations. For example, four of the UK's seven current ‘flu vaccines contain thimerosal, which is 50% ethyl mercury. Mercury compounds are linked to neurological damage including autism and Alzheimer's disease. The Department of Health are keeping very quiet about their decision to buy mercury-free vaccines and are not advertising the fact that these are available. Why the secrecy? It may have something to do with the recent US lawsuits totaling $50 billion against Eli Lilly, the makers of thimerosal. But there again, the White House have secretly added a clause to their Homeland Security Bill (yes, the anti-terrorism bill) just before Congress voted on it, which exempts Lilly from litigation brought by mercury-damaged victims and their relatives. How rotten and low can you get, White House?

Your wealthy buddies ruin people's lives and you make sure your buddies can carry on doing so. You continue to believe that animal testing and consequent trials are safe for humans do you? Safe enough for Eli Lilly, it seems. Safe enough for the vivisection industry.

Such faith we are supposed to have in the pseudo-science of animal testing and governmental procedures! But wait! Instead of at last dispensing with animal testing as the useless and unsafe method it is and using transparent publicly available proper scientific methods, the UK government, in its desperation and duplicity, is considering the addition of yet another clinical trails phase to phases I, II and III - a Phase IV - "in order to curb the number of harmful medicines that reach pharmacy shelves"said the Department of Health, February 2005. Bravo! They've admitted it.

But the harmful medicines, of course, don't just sit on pharmacy shelves (how innocuously phrased): they end up inside human bodies. The Department of Health's response is that the roulette wheel will spin once more.

And in a few years' time these dunces will introduce a Phase V, and VI . . . Phase MC . . . ad infinitum. That's all there is between you and some awful side-effect or three: animal testing and phases. Your original complaint might be relieved, but in its place you might suffer from something far worse. Who's to know until you actually take the medicine?

"Journals like The Lancet publish new studies all the time demonstrating that the risk of a certain drug are far higher than the manufacturer originally thought" (or maybe wanted to think).

"If you decide to take the course of drug, become your own laboratory. Look out for any unusual symptoms your body starts displaying. You might suddenly have difficulty sleeping . . . or getting dizzy spells . . . suspect the drug and report the effects to your doctor immediately." " . . . The UK in particular, and Europe in general, suffer from a massive underreporting of drug side effects and adverse reactions." The foregoing comes from the book "Secrets of the Drugs Industry", by Bryan Hubbard (2002).

Then there's the worried Bush Administration in the USA, which has plans to create an independent board to monitor drug safety, a move designed to shore up public confidence in the US regulatory system. (The Times, 16 Feb 2005). Fatheads. These governments are treating the effect and not the cause.

Click Here to Read Part 1: STATE AND CORPORATE BARBARISM: EXPERIMENTAL TESTING ON HUMANS

Click Here to Read Part 3: SO WHAT'S SORT OF NEW?