Cultocracy note :
The following article includes excerpts from a 2008 report into neuroscience produced by US government advisory body the National Research Council , the paper was produced for the military & intelligence communities .
The report outlines methods that can be used by military & intelligence agencies to further their inhumane criminal enterprises & the quest for full spectrum dominance of the population . Although this report is from 2008 these technologies have been developed for decades in secret off the books ‘black projects’ . The research & experimentation is a continuation of the MK Ultra research from the 1960’s & 1970’s , which itself was borne out of Nazi research in the same fields during WWII .
The technology is advancing , neural implants have been superceded by synthetically engineered nano particles . Nano particles can be introduced using a wide range of vectors across a broad surface area of the population . The related neural imaging methods are constantly being perfected , the wavelengths are cloaked using frequency hopping multiplexing methods , they cannot be measured accurately . The deep state organisations involved are anxious to maintain a lead over their rivals , a new arms race has emerged .
The scientific methods need to be tested , rats & guinea pigs are of no use , human subjects are required . Be under no illusion , these technologies are currently being tested on targets across the globe , both individuals & whole populations , with disastrous results for the people involved . Many of the effects are silent & subtle and will only emerge over time , maybe this is part of the plan . They represent the deepest , darkest & most destructive elements of humanity , crimes against humanity is an understatement .
MK Ultra never went away , it simply went underground .
In this chapter the ethical implications of neuroscienece technologies are discussed . The paper reveals a shadowy & secretive section of the deep state that see the development of new technologies as an imperative to be followed at any cost . Normal constraints on human experimentation are completely disregarded by these organisations and are flouted at every turn , attempts to introduce legislation has been sabotaged , any codes of conduct that have been introduced have been contemptuously ignored .
Interestingly there seems to be a blurring of the lines in times of war , basically anything goes . The Cold War provided a perfect excuse for further inhumane experimentation , this and other low level ‘wars’ provide a pretext for the acceleration of deep state ‘black projects’ . There is little doubt that the architects of the ‘War on Terror’ used this particular phoney conflict as a trojan horse to further their fascist ambitions , especially regarding neuroscience applications .The dialectic is in plain sight , the synthesis being the evolution of technologies of control .
Continual conflict , fear mongering & war is necessary for these high ranking members of the Josef Mengele fan club . War equals increased funding for the compromised military & intelligence agencies , which leaves a large pot that allows hard cash to be siphoned off & diverted at will into Frankenstein style experimental projects . Corruption & fraud is rampant .
If war is simply a cover and smokescreen it still leaves a very important question .
What are the real aims and ambitions of the controllers & their brainwashed minions ?
As usual the keyword is control .
Emerging Areas of Cognitive Neuroscience and Neurotechnologies
There is an assumption in Western models of choice that those who choose for themselves are happier, are healthier, and perform better than those who do not get to choose (Brehm, 1956; Deci and Ryan,1987). However, having more choice or decision options is not necessarily preferred.
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE AND RELATED TECHNOLOGIES
Two important characteristics of bioethics are the large and continuing role of scandals in the growth of the field and the prominence of public commissions in the development of its canon and in advancing its social legitimacy.
A 1966 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine by a distinguished Harvard professor of anesthesiology asserted that ethical problems in human research trials were rampant .
Social-science studies, such as Stanley Milgram’s “obedience to authority” experiment, also called attention to professional ethics (Milgram, 1973, 1974).
No incident so rocked the medical world as the 1972 revelation of the U.S. Public Health Service syphilis study in which 400 black men who had tertiary syphilis were observed for 40 years without consent and without penicillin therapy when it became available (Moreno, 2001).Among the public responses to the syphilis-study scandal was the formation of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1974-1978).
On the whole, however, the system of protections for human research subjects is not well designed to capture instances of intentional wrongdoing.
Nearly 50 years later, 23 Nazi doctors and bureaucrats were tried at Nuremberg for crimes involving horrific experiments on concentration-camp inmates.
The defendants appealed to the doctrine of superior orders and to a utilitarian justification that many lives could be saved by jeopardizing the lives of a few people already slated for death. They further noted that the allied governments had themselves engaged in human experiments on captive populations for national security purposes during the war .
The third part of the tribunal’s decision is known as the Nuremberg Code. The first sentence is famous and reads, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
It is remarkable that the national-security–related interest in human experiment rules was unfolding in the United States at precisely the same time as the Nuremburg Tribunals, but not in public.
Early in 1947, the new Atomic Energy Commission discovered that its predecessor, the Manhattan Engineer District (better known as the Manhattan Project), had sponsored the injection of plutonium into 17 hospitalized patients, apparently as part of an effort to establish the human excretion rate for the sake of young laboratory workers who might be exposed to the newly isolated metal. The commission decided not to release information about those sensitive experiments to the public, but it determined that its contractors to whom it released radioisotopes for medical studies would have to obtain the subjects’ “informed consent.” That was the first time that phrase appeared, as far as is known. However, the requirement seems to have been at best poorly applied and to have disappeared from institutional memory by the early 1950s (Moreno, 2001).
As the early Cold War era unfolded, DOD contemplated the need to engage in human experiments involving atomic, biological, and chemical agents for defensive purposes.
Finally, the department’s general counsel proposed that the Nuremberg Code, penned by three American judges only a few years before, apply to the atomic, biological, and chemical “(ABC) warfare” experiments to avoid the U.S. hypocrisy of not following the code. Secretary Charles M. Wilson adopted the proposal shortly after taking office in 1953 but included a written consent requirement. That caused consternation among the advisory committees that seem largely to have opposed the adoption of any such formal policy, considering it an unnecessary departure from prior practices and a dangerous precedent that could undermine military and medical authority (Wilson, 1953).
The Wilson policy made little difference in the conduct of national-security related scientific and technological exercises. Perhaps the most graphic example of the failure of the policy was the deployment of over 200,000 soldiers and marines within a few miles of ground zero at atomic test shots throughout the 1950s.
In contrast, the Army lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) experiments of the 1960s were accompanied by some informed-consent processes, however minimal and inadequate. By 1975, the Army inspector general concluded that the Wilson policy had failed.
Secret military and intelligence-related human experiments seem to have ceased after the Army and CIA scandals of the middle 1970s, and a vastly more sensitive attitude on these matters appears to have prevailed, although some insist that secret experiments should continue .
Thus, DOD sought and received from FDA a waiver of informed consent for the voluntary use of some compounds during the first Gulf War.
The IC is subject to the same common provisions of informed consent and prior review although it is claimed that no human experiments are performed by intelligence agencies.
A contemporary problem is the status of detainees at military installations who are suspects in the war on terrorism. Presumably, the ethical standards that apply to all human research subjects should apply to them as well.
Less is known about America’s traditional allies, which have been far less candid about their research activities on sensitive issues. One interesting recent exception is the sarin gas experiments at Porton Down in the United Kingdom during the 1950s. Revelations associated with the 1953 death of a British soldier in one of those experiments led to a new inquest in 2005 that cast some light on the work and raised grave questions about the consent and safety procedures in place at the time.
Ethics, Cognitive Neuroscience, and National-Security Research
The field of bioethics has spawned several related fields—clinical ethics, research ethics, and public-health ethics—and more recently has given rise to neuroethics.
Among the topics addressed in neuroethics are the nature of personal identity, human dignity, and autonomy in light of various novel surgical and pharmacological interventions; the relationship between mind and body in light of new information about brain processes; the implications of neural imaging for privacy; neurogenetics and behavior control; and the management of suspicious results of neuroimaging research.
American society experienced a telling episode along those lines during the 1950s, when “brain-washing” became part of popular culture and IC experiments after the treasonous statements of American prisoners of war in captivity in North Korea. Although anxieties about clandestine U.S. government activities are easy to deride, later Army and CIA experiments involving hallucinogens were associated with at least two deaths in 1953 and with multiple exposures of ordinary citizens.
The current underlying science and resulting technology are far more sophisticated and, to many, threatening to personal autonomy and human dignity. Proponents of the science may well argue that neuroscience promises to enhance rather than undermine dignity and autonomous choice, but that point of view is not always the prevalent one, especially when national-security goals are viewed with suspicion. Examples of neuroscience experiments that may have implications for national security are numerous. Virtually all involve what has been called “dual use” research applicable to military, intelligence, or policing, as well as health-care, purposes.
International Standards and Controls
Research with human subjects is guided by several international documents that are discussed in detail in Appendix E . In Europe, research is further governed by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) 12 and the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice (EFGCP).
It should be noted that the United States is not necessarily in a position of moral superiority to other countries with regard to practices; as noted above, there are serious questions about the extent to which the research house in the United States is in order.
However, several questions remain about the adequacy of the protection of human beings as subjects of biomedical research related to cognitive neuroscience, especially in confidential or military contexts.
How much overlap is there between national and international requirements for
the protection of subjects of research involving human beings?