71–80 of 142 posts
Does this have anything to do with the measles outbreak and the ensuing vaccination/anti-vaccination debate in California?
"No, Grandpa, but thanks for your concern. I don't think there's any mystery here."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're curious about the chemtrail crowd, I'd recommend the "documentary" 'what in the world are they spraying' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA It's one of the many conspiracy type videos out there, and I don't endorse the content in any way.. I just find this stuff fascinating
What I find fascinating about the conspiracy theories is that the moment you start believing in one you will start believing in most of them. As if the logic gate in the brain suddenly stopped working.
But, when we look at history, it is probably more logical to be skeptical. Our history is replete with Massively Bad Things that are nearly unbelievable in scale, and we would certainly prefer not to believe humans capable of such things, if given a choice.
At the same time, we also know that there are people with a vested interest in creating certain beliefs and outcomes.
So, what I find interesting is people's determination to believe something, simply because it is offered as the "official story". These stories don't require nearly the same degree of evidence, or even plausibilty to be accepted, as long as they are mainstreamed as official. The logic gate is then not even activated by the masses. Yet, the moment an alternative is posed, it is immediately (and often angrily) seized upon by those same people who now suddenly require a massive degree of evidence.
I believe that a default position of skepticism is far healthier in a society than blind acceptance of official stories. Where I believe skeptics get into trouble is when they move beyond questioning to actually posing an alternative story that is no more provable than the official one.
To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. The background seems to be that they wanted to test the distribution of the bacteria rather than the effects on humans (which they thought to be zero any way). Add to that the fact that bacterial infections often hitchhike on other injuries, infections or conditions, it's not clear that the death was entirely the fault of the particul…
I would hope NO state would do such a thing in the current time. We are well past the point in civilization to accept this type of action from any state or organization.
The 1950s wasn't the dark ages. People in positions of power had already been through the horror of gas attacks in the First World War, which is about the closest equivalent. The Nazis had experimented with biological weapons, and this was reasonably widespread knowledge at the time.
So if your point is that it was a simpler, more ignorant time, I don't think that works.
What we all have to face is that, when allowed to operate in secret, this is what governments have done and will continue to do. Often with "good" intentions.
If there's something we need to evolve, it's the oversight of our institutions, or indeed abolishing some of them.
To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. The background seems to be that they wanted to test the distribution of the bacteria rather than the effects on humans (which they thought to be zero any way). Add to that the fact that bacterial infections often hitchhike on other injuries, infections or conditions, it's not clear that the death was entirely the fault of the particul…
Who could possibly foresee that there could be other injuries, infections or conditions present in a fucking city.
To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. The background seems to be that they wanted to test the distribution of the bacteria rather than the effects on humans (which they thought to be zero any way). Add to that the fact that bacterial infections often hitchhike on other injuries, infections or conditions, it's not clear that the death was entirely the fault of the particul…
I would hope NO state would do such a thing in the current time. We are well past the point in civilization to accept this type of action from any state or organization.
To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. The background seems to be that they wanted to test the distribution of the bacteria rather than the effects on humans (which they thought to be zero any way). Add to that the fact that bacterial infections often hitchhike on other injuries, infections or conditions, it's not clear that the death was entirely the fault of the particul…
> it was a violation of the Nuremberg code How so? The article is a bit biased in calling humans the subjects of the test, where it doesn't sound to me like an objective definition of the word supports that framing in the least. A subjects of an experiment is the entity being observed and on which data is being gathered. In this case, it is the bacteria, and the data that was gathered was their movement through the c…
It's actually pretty conventional to label any research that involves changing the environment of people as involving "human subjects" -- even if the purpose of the research is not directed at understanding how the change affects people.
Here [0], for example, is a U.S. Department of Energy web page that defines the "scope of research" for human subjects studies. It says, in part, [R]esearch using human subjects encompasses a broader range of research than many investigators... often realize. In addition to traditional biomedical and clinical studies, human subjects research includes, but is not limited to, studies that... evaluate environmental alterations
To make that even more explicit, they have a "regulations" web page [1]. The top link there is to a memo that clarifies that any "research involving intentional modification of an individual's or a group of individuals' environment" must be managed according to the rules for human subjects research.
(All that said, it's possible that the military did go through an internal "human subjects" review, which might have concluded that the trials were OK, on the basis that the agents were supposed to be harmless.)
[0] http://humansubjects.energy.gov/research/scope.htm [1] http://humansubjects.energy.gov/regulations/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're curious about the chemtrail crowd, I'd recommend the "documentary" 'what in the world are they spraying' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA It's one of the many conspiracy type videos out there, and I don't endorse the content in any way.. I just find this stuff fascinating
What I find fascinating about the conspiracy theories is that the moment you start believing in one you will start believing in most of them. As if the logic gate in the brain suddenly stopped working.