5 ms·

The CIA, in 1955, released the whooping cough virus over Tampa Bay, Florida. The interwebs is being rather scrubby lately, hence the substandard quality link b

by eth0up 5y ago

The CIA, in 1955, released the whooping cough virus over Tampa Bay, Florida. The interwebs is being rather scrubby lately, hence the substandard quality link below. If ye sertch, ye wil fynd. https://amazef.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-cia-released-whooping-cough-virus.html?m=1 https://amazef.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-cia-released-whoopin... If you are actually serious and willing to remain on antidepressants indefinitely, please review the Wikipedia article titled: Unethical Human Experimentation In The United States. Millions could wrangle a PhD dissertation from that alone. PS: It never ended.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Horrifying stuff in the Wikipedia article. Absolutely disgusting. But the last entry there was for 1969. That's 53 years ago. What is your basis for saying "It never ended"?
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  I would ask the question: what is declassified now and what year do things automatically become unclassified etc...? Not saying its proof, just very plausible
- darioush 5y ago
  I suppose the real question is what credibility is left for the government to demonstrate it no longer "dabbles", and/or what is the line?
- cryptonector 5y ago
  > That's 53 years ago. What is your basis for saying "It never ended"? Are you demanding evidence? I mean, yes, "it never ended" is a bold claim, but we have no evidence that it ended either, so the alternative also would be a bold claim. Depending on the actual intent of the organizations that did these horrifying things long ago, the fact that they got away with it might mean they never had a reason to stop, or it might mean that they really were doing mostly-low-harm studies to protect us from others' more harmful designs. But we just don't know. It's not unreasonable to assume that "it never ended" in the absence of evidence to the contrary given that - it happened at all and especially if: - there was no controversy at the time - no controls were put in place to prevent re-occurrence - we only found recently - there was no controversy when we found out recently Certainly one should wonder. And out of an abundance of caution we should assume that "it never ended". Evidence that it never happened again, of course, will be hard to come by just on account of negatives being hard to prove... But we could have evidence of controls and audits put in place to prevent these things from happening, so: is there any such evidence?
- eth0up 5y ago
  I've seen many of your comments here over time and thusly evaluated you and many others as fair and intelligent humans, long before this question. I respect your curiosity, but I respectfully decline. Indirectly, please consider the pace of evolution, which is not too brisk on the modern human timescale. Certain propensities, markedly those long enduring, are not inclined to suddenly disappear at the very moment others cease documenting them. The human mind does not change intrinsically over such short time nor turn upon such dimes, however compelling the eureka of the epoch. Every demon or villain of history is here, right now, under vastly different, but unfortunately accommodating circumstances.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    First: It isn't often that I disagree with someone, and get complimented in return. So, thank you. Second, I'll return the compliment. You've made me think, which is about the highest praise that you can give to an HN comment. Like you, I do not believe in the perfectability of human nature. It's a very utopian idea, but bitter experience has shown us that it doesn't work, despite so many believing that it does. My starting position was that we're mostly better than that, and those experiments were aberrations. I'm no longer certain that that's a tenable position. What might be a realistic position is that we add processes that prevent (or at least limit) previous excesses. We add institutional review boards, for example. And yet, we recently saw the "lets deliberately add bugs to Linux to see if the review process catches them" fiasco, which an IRB should have stopped. The processes can be bypassed, ignored, rigged, or they can simply fail. People are still motivated to try to find ways to do what they want to do. I guess that leaves me somewhat more trusting of our institutions than you are, but somewhat less trusting of them than I was yesterday...
    - eth0up 5y ago
      Not in proper condition for a pithy reply, so I'll link drop instead. 1. The widely revered Torvalds reverse nod: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gRsgkdfYJ8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gRsgkdfYJ8 Thanks for the earnest, humble insight. Edit: Removed irrelevant link.
    - 5y ago
- yucky 5y ago
  The US still hasn't declassified documents about the Kennedy Assassination and that was in 1963. We only know what has been declassified. I suppose we could just trust the US government, but what reason would we have to do that? Trust is earned, is it not?
- juanani 5y ago

by eth0up 5y ago

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Horrifying stuff in the Wikipedia article. Absolutely disgusting. But the last entry there was for 1969. That's 53 years ago. What is your basis for saying "It never ended"?

netizen-936824 5y ago
I would ask the question: what is declassified now and what year do things automatically become unclassified etc...? Not saying its proof, just very plausible
darioush 5y ago
I suppose the real question is what credibility is left for the government to demonstrate it no longer "dabbles", and/or what is the line?
cryptonector 5y ago
> That's 53 years ago. What is your basis for saying "It never ended"? Are you demanding evidence? I mean, yes, "it never ended" is a bold claim, but we have no evidence that it ended either, so the alternative also would be a bold claim. Depending on the actual intent of the organizations that did these horrifying things long ago, the fact that they got away with it might mean they never had a reason to stop, or it might mean that they really were doing mostly-low-harm studies to protect us from others' more harmful designs. But we just don't know. It's not unreasonable to assume that "it never ended" in the absence of evidence to the contrary given that - it happened at all and especially if: - there was no controversy at the time - no controls were put in place to prevent re-occurrence - we only found recently - there was no controversy when we found out recently Certainly one should wonder. And out of an abundance of caution we should assume that "it never ended". Evidence that it never happened again, of course, will be hard to come by just on account of negatives being hard to prove... But we could have evidence of controls and audits put in place to prevent these things from happening, so: is there any such evidence?
eth0up 5y ago
I've seen many of your comments here over time and thusly evaluated you and many others as fair and intelligent humans, long before this question. I respect your curiosity, but I respectfully decline. Indirectly, please consider the pace of evolution, which is not too brisk on the modern human timescale. Certain propensities, markedly those long enduring, are not inclined to suddenly disappear at the very moment others cease documenting them. The human mind does not change intrinsically over such short time nor turn upon such dimes, however compelling the eureka of the epoch. Every demon or villain of history is here, right now, under vastly different, but unfortunately accommodating circumstances.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  First: It isn't often that I disagree with someone, and get complimented in return. So, thank you. Second, I'll return the compliment. You've made me think, which is about the highest praise that you can give to an HN comment. Like you, I do not believe in the perfectability of human nature. It's a very utopian idea, but bitter experience has shown us that it doesn't work, despite so many believing that it does. My starting position was that we're mostly better than that, and those experiments were aberrations. I'm no longer certain that that's a tenable position. What might be a realistic position is that we add processes that prevent (or at least limit) previous excesses. We add institutional review boards, for example. And yet, we recently saw the "lets deliberately add bugs to Linux to see if the review process catches them" fiasco, which an IRB should have stopped. The processes can be bypassed, ignored, rigged, or they can simply fail. People are still motivated to try to find ways to do what they want to do. I guess that leaves me somewhat more trusting of our institutions than you are, but somewhat less trusting of them than I was yesterday...
  - eth0up 5y ago
    Not in proper condition for a pithy reply, so I'll link drop instead. 1. The widely revered Torvalds reverse nod: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gRsgkdfYJ8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gRsgkdfYJ8 Thanks for the earnest, humble insight. Edit: Removed irrelevant link.
  - 5y ago
yucky 5y ago
The US still hasn't declassified documents about the Kennedy Assassination and that was in 1963. We only know what has been declassified. I suppose we could just trust the US government, but what reason would we have to do that? Trust is earned, is it not?
juanani 5y ago