4 ms·

The did experiments on US citizens, they spread a bacteria in the SF fog to see if it would be spread to the citizens in SF. They picked a bacteria they thought

The did experiments on US citizens, they spread a bacteria in the SF fog to see if it would be spread to the citizens in SF. They picked a bacteria they thought was harmless, but showed up brightly on a stain for microscope slides. Turns out some people are actually harmed by this bacteria, but again, bio-warfare testing on an uninformed US civilians. A war crime. They actually killed someone: On October 11, 1950, eleven residents checked into Stanford Hospital in San Francisco with very rare, serious urinary tract infections. Although ten recovered, Edward J. Nevin, who had had recent prostate surgery, died three weeks later from a heart valve infection. The urinary tract outbreak was so unusual that the Stanford doctors wrote it up for a medical journal. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray

smnrchrds 3y ago
I dislike the emphasis on the "US citizen" part. Would it have been any better if they had done it to us Canadian citizens instead? Or to any other nationality? https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-s-secretly-tested-carcinogen-in-western-canada-during-the-cold-war-researcher-discovers https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-s-secretly-tested-car...
- sergiomattei 3y ago
  I believe the point is that it’s being done on US soil, which infringes on the rights of US citizens.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  Wasn't the test done on US citizens? If the test was done on Canadians, we would be talking about Canadian citizens and not US citizens.
  - OwenFM 3y ago
    Were the people wearing glasses? Did they have curly hair? It's not mentioned because it makes no difference. Calling out that they're US citizens or Canadian citizens implies that these people are somehow first-class people, and everyone else is riff raff − fair game for such experiments.
    - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
      On the contrary. It was the WHO of the article. I think you just felt a self-important compulsion to point out that Canadians need constant attention.
    - MarkMarine 3y ago
      That isn’t what I said, I’m being specific about who these experiments were done on. I resent the implication that I think any other people based on where they were born or where they live are less in any way. I strongly disagree with that.
- MarkMarine 3y ago
  I didn't mean anything nationalist by that phrasing.
crazydoggers 3y ago
Well first you’re talking about a different situation than the article. In addition, in the San Francisco case you link, it was not established that the bacteria caused the death you are referring to. > The lower court ruled against them primarily because the bacteria used in the test was unproven to be responsible for Nevin's death. The Nevin family appealed the suit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to overturn lower court judgments Again, blankets statements rather than facts don’t help discuss the issue. Nuance is best. I for one think they should not have done any of these tests, and that they crossed clear ethical boundaries. But I’m not going to create misinformation, “beg the question”, appeal to emotion, or point to false cause to convince someone that it’s a wrong and immoral thing to do. These types of arguments are why we had so much confusion, and lack of educated discussion around Covid and vaccines, the pros and cons of nuclear power, etc etc.
- MarkMarine 3y ago
  I'm responding directly to the parent comment, but I'd argue that spreading this same bacteria by smashing lightbulbs in a subway full of people, and spreading it in a fog in SF, a city full of people, then seeing if those people had the bacteria in their bodies is essentially the same type of situation as the article. What do you see as differences? So the US government didn't prove in a court of law that the US government killed someone with the US government's illegal experiment, that it didn't even admit was happening? This is the standard of proof here? If so, I'm going to guess the other atrocities the US has committed and not taking full and complete responsibility for can't be discussed either? When the system in power refuses to accept blame for it's actions, we just have to take its word or it's misinformation? Come on. Let's think about some other cases the highest court in the land got obviously wrong and then consider your argument. - Dread Scott v Sanford. held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and thus they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. [0] - Buck v. Bell, is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1] - Korematsu v. United States, decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. [2] - Plessy v. Ferguson, which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal" [3] (Oh, and since I don't want to only talk about civil rights cases, since that might not carry much weight for you, how about property rights:) - Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [4] I could go on but I don't feel like going through all these horrible cases. How will we ever square this perfect arbiter of truth, the Supreme Court's multiple fuckups with our examination of truth? I'd recommend using your eyeballs and sound judgement. How am I creating misinformation by quoting wikipedia and then linking to it so anyone can read the source material? To compare this with COVID misinformation is egregious. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

smnrchrds 3y ago

I dislike the emphasis on the "US citizen" part. Would it have been any better if they had done it to us Canadian citizens instead? Or to any other nationality? https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-s-secretly-tested-carcinogen-in-western-canada-during-the-cold-war-researcher-discovers https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-s-secretly-tested-car...

sergiomattei 3y ago
I believe the point is that it’s being done on US soil, which infringes on the rights of US citizens.
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
Wasn't the test done on US citizens? If the test was done on Canadians, we would be talking about Canadian citizens and not US citizens.
- OwenFM 3y ago
  Were the people wearing glasses? Did they have curly hair? It's not mentioned because it makes no difference. Calling out that they're US citizens or Canadian citizens implies that these people are somehow first-class people, and everyone else is riff raff − fair game for such experiments.
  - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
    On the contrary. It was the WHO of the article. I think you just felt a self-important compulsion to point out that Canadians need constant attention.
  - MarkMarine 3y ago
    That isn’t what I said, I’m being specific about who these experiments were done on. I resent the implication that I think any other people based on where they were born or where they live are less in any way. I strongly disagree with that.
MarkMarine 3y ago
I didn't mean anything nationalist by that phrasing.

crazydoggers 3y ago

Well first you’re talking about a different situation than the article. In addition, in the San Francisco case you link, it was not established that the bacteria caused the death you are referring to. > The lower court ruled against them primarily because the bacteria used in the test was unproven to be responsible for Nevin's death. The Nevin family appealed the suit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to overturn lower court judgments Again, blankets statements rather than facts don’t help discuss the issue. Nuance is best. I for one think they should not have done any of these tests, and that they crossed clear ethical boundaries. But I’m not going to create misinformation, “beg the question”, appeal to emotion, or point to false cause to convince someone that it’s a wrong and immoral thing to do. These types of arguments are why we had so much confusion, and lack of educated discussion around Covid and vaccines, the pros and cons of nuclear power, etc etc.

MarkMarine 3y ago
I'm responding directly to the parent comment, but I'd argue that spreading this same bacteria by smashing lightbulbs in a subway full of people, and spreading it in a fog in SF, a city full of people, then seeing if those people had the bacteria in their bodies is essentially the same type of situation as the article. What do you see as differences? So the US government didn't prove in a court of law that the US government killed someone with the US government's illegal experiment, that it didn't even admit was happening? This is the standard of proof here? If so, I'm going to guess the other atrocities the US has committed and not taking full and complete responsibility for can't be discussed either? When the system in power refuses to accept blame for it's actions, we just have to take its word or it's misinformation? Come on. Let's think about some other cases the highest court in the land got obviously wrong and then consider your argument. - Dread Scott v Sanford. held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and thus they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. [0] - Buck v. Bell, is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1] - Korematsu v. United States, decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. [2] - Plessy v. Ferguson, which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal" [3] (Oh, and since I don't want to only talk about civil rights cases, since that might not carry much weight for you, how about property rights:) - Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [4] I could go on but I don't feel like going through all these horrible cases. How will we ever square this perfect arbiter of truth, the Supreme Court's multiple fuckups with our examination of truth? I'd recommend using your eyeballs and sound judgement. How am I creating misinformation by quoting wikipedia and then linking to it so anyone can read the source material? To compare this with COVID misinformation is egregious. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London