How Eugenics became Genetics, what that mean for us
and why does it matter more than ever bevor…
"This is about a society in a free fall.
On the way down it keeps telling itself
~ so far so good, so far so good, so far so good.
But it's not about how you fall, it's about how you land.''
La Haine
So if the the beginning really matter what could it tell us about the end?
Lets beginn by the technocratic movement that taking place in 1920…
The term technocracy is derived from the Greek words τέχνη, tekhne meaning skill and κράτος, kratos meaning power, as in governance, or rule. William Henry Smyth, a California engineer, is usually credited with inventing the word technocracy in 1919 to describe „the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers“, although the word had been used before on several occasions.[6][8][9] Smyth used the term Technocracy in his 1919 article „Technocracy” – Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy“ in the journal Industrial Management (57).[10]Smyth’s usage referred to Industrial democracy: a movement to integrate workers into decision-making through existing firms or revolution.[10]
In the 1930s, through the influence of Howard Scott and the technocracy movement he founded, the term technocracy came to mean ‚government by technical decision making‘, using an energy metric of value. Scott proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates denominated in units such as ergs or joules, equivalent in total amount to an appropriate national net energy budget, and then distributed equally among the North American population, according to resource availability.[11][2]
The American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen was an early advocate of technocracy and was involved in the Technical Alliance, as were Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert (the latter of whom later developed the theory of peak oil). Veblen believed technological developments would eventually lead to a socialistic reorganization of economic affairs. Veblen saw socialism as one intermediate phase in an ongoing evolutionary process in society that would be brought about by the natural decay of the business enterprise system and the rise of the engineers.[38]Daniel Bell sees an affinity between Veblen and the Technocracy movement.[39]
In 1932, Howard Scott and Marion King Hubbert founded Technocracy Incorporated and proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates. The group argued that apolitical, rational engineers should be vested with the authority to guide an economy into a thermodynamically balanced load of production and consumption, thereby doing away with unemployment and debt.[2]
The technocracy movement was briefly popular in the US in the early 1930s during the Great Depression. By the mid-1930s, interest in the movement was declining. Some historians have attributed the decline to the rise of Roosevelt’s New Deal.[40][41]
Historian William E. Akin rejects this conclusion. Instead, Akin argues that the movement declined in the mid-1930s due to the technocrats‘ failure to devise a ‚viable political theory for achieving change‘.[42]Akin postulates that many technocrats remained vocal, dissatisfied, and often sympathetic to anti-New Deal third-party efforts.[43]
There is in common usage found the derivative term technocrat. The word technocrat can refer to someone exercising governmental authority because of their knowledge,[12] „a member of a powerful technical elite“, or „someone who advocates the supremacy of technical experts“.[13][4][5]McDonnell and Valbruzzi define a prime minister or minister as a technocrat if „at the time of their appointment to government, they: have never held public office under the banner of a political party; are not a formal member of any party; and are said to possess recognized non-party political expertise which is directly relevant to the role occupied in government“.[14] In Russia, the President of Russia has often nominated ministers based on technical expertise from outside political circles, and these have been referred to as „technocrats“.[15][16]
Official symbol of the Technocracy movement (Technocracy Inc.). The Monad emblem signifies balance between consumption and production.
The movement was committed to abstaining from all partisan politics and communist revolution. It gained strength in the 1930s but in 1940, due to opposition to the Second World War, was banned in Canada. The ban was lifted in 1943 when it was apparent that ‚Technocracy Inc. was committed to the war effort, proposing a program of total conscription.‘[3] The movement continued to expand during the remainder of the war and new sections were formed in Ontario and the Maritime Provinces.[4]
In a publication from 1938 Technocracy Inc. the main organization made the following statement in defining their proposal:
Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population of this continent. For the first time in human history it will be done as a scientific, technical, engineering problem. There will be no place for Politics or Politicians, Finance or Financiers, Rackets or Racketeers. Technocracy states that this method of operating the social mechanism of the North American Continent is now mandatory because we have passed from a state of actual scarcity into the present status of potential abundance in which we are now held to an artificial scarcity forced upon us in order to continue a Price Systemwhich can distribute goods only by means of a medium of exchange.
Technocracy states that price and abundance are incompatible; the greater the abundance the smaller the price. In a real abundance there can be no price at all. Only by abandoning the interfering price control and substituting a scientific method of production and distribution can an abundance be achieved. Technocracy will distribute by means of a certificate of distribution available to every citizen from birth to death.
The Technate will encompass the entire American Continent from Panama to the North Pole because the natural resourcesand the natural boundary of this area make it an independent, self-sustaining geographical unit.[43]
Assembling a distinctive genealogy of cybernetic thought situated in relation to Progressive Era technocracy, industrial capitalism, (de)colonial relations, and eugenic machinery, Code uncovers the vital interdependence of informatics, the humanities, and the human sciences in the 20th century. Rather than figuring cybernetics as emerging from Second World War military technologies and post-war digital computing, Code argues that liberal technocrats’ inter-war visions of social welfare delivered via ‘neutral’ communication techniques shaped the informatic interventions of both the Second World War and the Cold War. Tracing how an organizing concept of code linked the work of diverse structurally-minded thinkers, such as Norbert Wiener, Warren Weaver, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Roman Jakobson, Jacques Lacan, Roland Barthes, and Luce Irigaray, Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan reconstructs the cybernetic apparatus that spawned new fields, including structural anthropology, family therapy, and literary semiology – and grapples with the unfolding implications of such socio-technical dynamics for 21st-century critical theory, digital media, and data analytics.
In reconstructing the political impetus of longstanding efforts to render diverse and unwieldy phenomena as forms of code, this outstanding book offers a new history of cybernetics and digital media with far-reaching epistemological, ideological, and ethical implications. Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan’s rich and surprising account of the common inheritance shared by information theory and French Theory in the era of liberal technocracy, industrial capitalism, and colonial crisis will change how we think about the nature, risks, and possibilities of data analytics, critical theory, and the digital humanities now and for years to come.
As an interdisciplinary science of communication, computation, and control, cybernetics has long been associated with Second World War military innovations and post-war digital computing. In offering an alternative periodization which arcs back to Progressive Era liberal technocracy in the US, Code assembles a novel account of the birth of cybernetic thinking which foregrounds the social engineering of welfare over technologies of warfare. Vital to the emergence of cybernetic epistemologies, in this view, were robber baron philanthropies such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Josiah Macy Foundation which, in the aftermath of the First World War, sought to engage technical management as a noncoercive means of addressing international political violence and domestic matters of inequality and ‘social hygiene’.
A key player in Code’s account of these dynamics is the scientist Warren Weaver who, in his role as director of the Rockefeller Foundation’s Division of Natural Sciences from 1932 to 1955, approved major projects by the mathematicians Norbert Weiner and John von Neumann, the computer engineer Vannevar Bush, and other leading cybernetic researchers. Weaver was, of course, a prominent cybernetician in his own right, as illustrated most famously in his 1949 reinterpretation of the information theorist Claude Shannon’s article ‘A Mathematical Theory of Communication’, in which he argued that written letters, spoken words, musical notes, and visual images could be treated indiscriminately as symbols subject to computational analysis (Dionysius Geoghegan, 2023: 22). One of the book’s most significant contributions is, in this vein, its incisive analysis of the impact of the ideological orientations of private foundations (comprised of some of the wealthiest industrial magnates in the US) on the technocratic directions and possibilities of 20th-century scientific research.
These dynamics take on new contours today given how the worldviews of Silicon Valley tech elites are actively coalescing with right-leaning political movements to ‘advance an illiberal agenda and authoritarian tendencies’ (Troy, 2023). Providing important historical context for current developments, the book illuminates how a widespread focus within histories of cybernetics on ‘spectacular violence between nation states’ has contributed to obscuring ‘more subtle forms of technocratic violence’ (Dionysius Geoghegan, 2023: 52). Crucially, however, stretching cybernetics’ traditional timeline to encompass the 1920s and 1930s also foregrounds the importance of colonial relations, eugenics, and indigenous cultures to the rise of cybernetic methods and epistemologies – while shifting the focus of analysis from engineering, computing, and statistics to anthropology, psychology, linguistics, and critical theory.
The book argues, in this vein, that cybernetic efforts to theorize society in digital terms were informed by ‘three grim human enclosures’: the colony, the asylum, and the camp – each of which were approached as ‘delimited social milieus’ for studying ‘human communication in its elementary forms’ (2023: 1). With respect to the colony, the 1930s colonial ethnography of anthropologists (and founding members of the Macy Conference in Cybernetics inaugurated in New York City in 1942) Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson becomes central to Code’s genealogical narrative. In their media ethnographies of Balinese tribes carried out between 1936 and 1939, Mead and Bateson mobilize film, photography, and magnetic tape to ‘recast indigenous life as symbolic systems shaping activities as diverse as kinship, breastfeeding and dance’ (p. 63) – thus developing the outlines of early cybernetic analysis, which, Code argues, served as a crucial basis for Rockefeller and Macy funded work to position cybernetic approaches at the heart of the emergent human sciences.
Yet, as Dionysius Geoghegan underscores, the anthropologists’ framing of Balinese cultural patterns as symbolic systems depended ‘on the unacknowledged role of Dutch colonial violence in isolating and impoverishing indigenous life’ (p. 56), which made it particularly accessible to the ethnographic gaze. In this reading, Mead and Bateson’s 1942 book Balinese Character: A Photographic Analysis is revealed as ‘an exercise in media surveillance’ not dissimilar to the ‘obsessive records gathered by the Dutch administrators for colonial control’ (p. 63). Codethus exposes the imperial political technologies underscoring both cybernetic imaginaries and liberal technocratic visions of social improvement. It also, however, reanimates the rich indigenous life forms underlying the ‘impersonal cultural patterns’ that would steer both post-war communication engineering and post-millennial data analytics.
A similar critical treatment is given to Bateson’s work with the Palo Alto group in the 1960s, which mobilized media ethnography to frame the family itself as a cybernetic machine. In the group’s system-based conceptualization of family therapy, ‘families, not individuals, were sick, and the person labelled ill . . . undertook their own communicative amelioration’ (p. 54) – an approach which would shape psychotherapeutic interventions for decades to come. Yet Dionysius Geoghegan argues that in the Palo Alto group’s activities, as in Bateson’s later ecological thinking, what is consistently and problematically hidden from view is the dependence of such cybernetic ideas on ‘concrete places, like colonies, asylums, zoological institutes’ (p. 55). From this perspective, longstanding debates about (dis)embodiment in cybernetics take on new emphases.
The literary scholar and philosopher of science N. Katherine Hayles famously pinpointed the mathematician Alan Turing’s influential 1950 article ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ as marking the ‘inaugural moment of the computer age’ in which ‘the erasure of embodiment is performed’ – an elision arguably supported by Wiener’s and Shannon’s conceptualizations of ‘information as an entity distinct from the substrates carrying it’ (Hayles, 1999: xi). Codewagers, however, that the most significant erasure may have been ‘more political than technological’; starkly evident, that is, in how ‘dreams of cybernetic posthumanism depended on disappearing the bodies of native persons and other subjects regarded as less than human’ (2023: 10) – an argument resonant with contemporary analyses in Black studies and critical data studies which figure histories of machine learning as ‘conditioned by a set of atmospheric conditions that have attempted to organize both humans and technical objects around assumptions of race’ (Amaro, 2022: 13; Benjamin, 2019).
It is important, in this vein, that Code explicitly links the interactions among anthropology, biology, and computing animating early cybernetics to eugenic frameworks. Vannevar Bush, for instance, left MIT in 1939 to assume the presidency of the Carnegie Institution, a sponsor of the Eugenics Record Office, a proponent of ‘deep and abiding biological racism’ which Bush sought to resuscitate on ‘rigorous scientific foundations’ (2023: 36). As Dionysius Geoghegan notes, Bush was particularly interested in Shannon’s 1940 PhD thesis in genetics which explored how genetic transmission and eugenic data might be understood and managed mathematically ‘much like he would devise for telephone relays and chess-playing computers’ (p. 37). While Shannon ended up abandoning this work to focus on wartime engineering problems, Dionysius Geoghegan’s careful unpacking of cybernetics’ ominous entwinements with both colonial surveillance and eugenic methodologies provides crucial foundations for current mappings of the integration of ‘eugenic and segregationist thinking’ into machine learning systems (Chun, 2021: xi).
A further innovative aspect of Code is its detailed account of ‘the cybernetic apparatus’ – how a new epistemic system emerged not simply via the outputs of famous engineers and their machines but rather via a vibrant ‘network of institutions, methods, techniques, researchers, conferences, instruments, laboratories, clinics, infrastructures, and jargon’ (Dionysius Geoghegan, 2023: 13). Alongside the Russian linguist Roman Jakobson, the French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, a key thinker in the rise of structuralism and structural anthropology, is central to this discussion. Founding his Laboratory for Social Anthropology (LSA) at Paris’s École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) in 1960, Lévi-Strauss established ‘logical structures of primitive life with codes, punch cards, mathematics and structural analysis’ (p. 105) in ways that extended Mead and Bateson’s cybernetic colonial ethnography.
Yet the LSA also cultivated a new kind of social knowledge sympathetic to ‘the political infrastructures of 1960s global science’ and its changing technocratic logic in which ‘debates shifted from concrete embodied facts to the capacity to navigate, synthesize, and rearrange relations among data’ (p. 132). Foreshadowing the global postmodern condition to follow, Lévi-Strauss ultimately succeeded, Code contends, in shifting ‘the location of culture and the task of human sciences from physical artefacts possessed and witnessed by human minds to abstract models whose reality was attested to by machines’ (p. 121) – processes with considerable relevance to ongoing debates around the investments, risks, and potentialities of the digital humanities, and the wider use of quantitative, algorithmic, and data-oriented tools to study human-embodied, affective, socio-cultural life.
For those of us who cut our intellectual teeth on post-structuralism, cultural theory, and feminist and postcolonial critique, the most thought-provoking aspect of Code may be the implications it raises for contemporary critical thought. Although critical theory may still be presented today as straightforwardly critical of scientific or instrumental reason, Dionysius Geoghegan teases out how ‘practices of objectification, quantification, imperial control, [and] data capture and analysis’ are far from foreign to the humanities (p. 174).
From Code’s perspective, then, critical theory, informatics, and data-driven analysis by Google, Facebook and Amazon emerge from shared cybernetic roots. Differently to mid-century communications engineering, however, ‘digital cultural analytics premised on pervasive informatic enclosure [now] appears to be an imminently realizable endeavour’ (p. 171) – yet only, of course, for those who control the ‘codes that mark access to information or reject it’ (Deleuze, 1992: 5).
Hayles N. Katherine (1999) How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. GO TO REFERENCE
The technocratic dream for total control over every aspect of society wasn’t new and gave rise long bevor the Silicon Valley came to power. The pervasive collection of personal and medical data was first use by Hitler with the help of Ibm technology. The first computing system was a punchcard system for statistics. The Nazis used the centralized data to identify and catalog the useless, the sick, the elderly, the Jewish and Gypsis for the first step in the final solution! Another example is the Eugenics Record Office.
Published in 2001, with numerous subsequent expanded editions, Edwin Black outlined the key role of IBM’s technology in The Holocaustgenocide committed by the German Nazi regime, by facilitating the regime’s generation and tabulation of punch cards for national census data, military logistics, ghetto statistics, train traffic management, and concentration camp capacity.[1]
Identification of inmates in Nazi concentration camps was performed mostly with identification numbers marked on clothing, or later, tattooed on the skin. More specialized identification in Nazi concentration camps was done with badges on clothing and armbands.
Black details an ongoing business relationship between Watson’s IBM and the emerging German regime headed by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler came to power in January 1933; on March 20 of that same year he established a concentration campfor political prisoners in the Bavarian town of Dachau, just outside the city of Munich. Repression against political opponents and the country’s ethnic Jewish population began immediately. By April 1933, some 60,000 had been imprisoned.[2] Business relations between IBM and the Hitler regime continued uninterrupted in the face of broad international calls for an economic boycott.[2]: 45 Willy Heidinger, who remained the chief executive of Dehomag, the German subsidiary of which IBM owned 90%, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Hitler regime.[2]
Under Watson, IBM eagerly contacted the Hitler regime and made it clear that the company was “the solutions company.” Indeed, IBM would offer any solution the Nazis needed—including the Final Solution.
IBM hired thousands to execute a door-to-door racial census. Now Hitler had the Jewish names and locations. Then, IBM created systems to tabulate that personal data against professional and employment databases as well as financial institutions to help Germany systematically pauperize the sick, the useless and the Jews. Then, the data was used to organize the transfer of the feebleminded and sick and later to the mass transfer of the Jews and Gipsies from their homes into ghettos. Ghetto residents were then systematically forced onto trains. Those trains ran on IBM punch cards—they owed their punctual timetables to special IBM scheduling programs. All the work and prisoner data from all concentration camps was fed into a central nerve center in the T-Building at Oranienburg known as Section D-II and powered by custom-wired IBM machines. Everything IBM did was custom, specific, and tailored to the precise Nazi need.
Today, public fear of what big tech can do to surveil, censor, and control our lives—from China to California—has ignited heightening interest in this book and its detailed revelations. In January 2021, IBM and the Holocaust hit Amazon’s top 10 books in any category, #1 in WWII History, #1 in Military History, #1 in Company Profiles, and #1 in Jewish History. At the same time, Barnes & Noble reported the book as its number two most purchased.
IBM has proven that some corporations can get away with murder and still function with impunity.
To peer into our perilous future, we need only look back and see what IBM helped Hitler do during the Holocaust, in the era before computers existed.
Now is the time to ask what could a Hitler-type regime do today and how quickly with today’s high-speed hand-held technology?
But first pause to ask why IBM would ever engage in this genocide?
The still bloodcurdling answer: It was never just about the Nazism; it was never about antisemitism—it’s rall about Eugenics it was therefore about ideology, money and control. (Looks to me like a religion)
The key goal when it comes to use of technology to organize society the alarm bells must rising high🚨
What we are actually see with the revolution from AI and genomic is nothing more than the power to control the future of all aspects as information, media, knowledge, science, education, resources, energy, industry, food and water supply and in this case the control of the human mind, biology with the so called data driven and collected healthcare system with in the ultimate power to control live and death.
Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called „Master Race.“
But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn’t originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement’s campaign for ethnic cleansing.
Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed „unfit,“ preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in „colonies,“ and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.
California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the Twentieth Century’s first decades, California’s eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.
Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics‘ racist aims.
Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of „race and blood“ in his 1902 racial epistle „Blood of a Nation,“ in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.
In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation’s social service agencies and associations.
The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization.
The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.
Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California’s quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as the Pasadena-based Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations–which functioned as part of a closely-knit network–published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.
Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton’s ideas were imported into the United States just as Gregor Mendel’s principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenic advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.
In an America demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early twentieth century. Elitists, utopians and so-called „progressives“ fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton’s eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: populate the earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind–and less or none of everyone else.
The superior species the eugenics movement sought was populated not merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond, blue-eyed Nordic types. This group alone, they believed, was fit to inherit the earth. In the process, the movement intended to subtract emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian laborers, Indians, Hispanics, East Europeans, Jews, dark-haired hill folk, poor people, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.
How?
By identifying so-called „defective“ family trees and subjecting them to lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior–the so-called „unfit.“ The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.
18 solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 „Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder’s Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population.“ Point eight was euthanasia.
The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in America was a „lethal chamber“ or public locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, Applied Eugenics, which argued, „From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution… Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated.“ Applied Eugenics also devoted a chapter to „Lethal Selection,“ which operated „through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency.“
Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. One institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to forty percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.
Nonetheless, with eugenicide marginalized, the main solution for eugenicists was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as more marriage restrictions. California led the nation, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little or no due process. In its first twenty-five years of eugenic legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as „bad girls,“ diagnosed as „passionate,“ „oversexed“ or „sexually wayward.“ At Sonoma, some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or labia.
In 1933 alone, at least 1,278 coercive sterilizations were performed, 700 of which were on women. The state’s two leading sterilization mills in 1933 were Sonoma State Home with 388 operations and Patton State Hospital with 363 operations. Other sterilization centers included Agnews, Mendocino, Napa, Norwalk, Stockton and Pacific Colony state hospitals.
Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, „It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.“ This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes’s words in their own defense.
Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists.
Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti-Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. While Hitler’s race hatred sprung from his own mind, the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.
During the ’20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany’s fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. „There is today one state,“ wrote Hitler, „in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.“
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. „I have studied with great interest,“ he told a fellow Nazi, „the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.“
Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his „bible.“
Hitler’s struggle for a superior race would be a mad crusade for a Master Race. Now, the American term „Nordic“ was freely exchanged with „Germanic“ or „Aryan.“ Race science, racial purity and racial dominance became the driving force behind Hitler’s Nazism. Nazi eugenics would ultimately dictate who would be persecuted in a Reich-dominated Europe, how people would live, and how they would die. Nazi doctors would become the unseen generals in Hitler’s war against the Jews and other Europeans deemed inferior. Doctors would create the science, devise the eugenic formulas, and even hand-select the victims for sterilization, euthanasia and mass extermination.
During the Reich’s early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler’s plans as the logical fulfillment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the L.A. County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.
In 1934, as Germany’s sterilizations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe upon returning from Germany ebulliently bragged to a key colleague, „You will be interested to know, that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought.…I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.“
That same year, ten years after Virginia passed its sterilization act, Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia’s Western State Hospital, observed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, „The Germans are beating us at our own game.“
More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany’s eugenic institutions. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 — almost $4 million in 21st-Century money — to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rüdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler’s systematic medical repression.
Another in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute’s eugenic complex of institutions was the Institute for Brain Research. Since 1915, it had operated out of a single room. Everything changed when Rockefeller money arrived in 1929. A grant of $317,000 allowed the Institute to construct a major building and take center stage in German race biology. The Institute received additional grants from the Rockefeller Foundation during the next several years. Leading the Institute, once again, was Hitler’s medical henchman Ernst Rüdin. Rüdin’s organization became a prime director and recipient of the murderous experimentation and research conducted on Jews, Gypsies and others.
Beginning in 1940, thousands of Germans taken from old age homes, mental institutions and other custodial facilities were systematically gassed. Between 50,000 and 100,000 were eventually killed.
Leon Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society declared of Nazism, „While we were pussy-footing around…the Germans were calling a spade a spade.“
A special recipient of Rockefeller funding was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin. For decades, American eugenicists had craved twins to advance their research into heredity. The Institute was now prepared to undertake such research on an unprecedented level. On May 13, 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation in New York dispatched a radiogram to its Paris office: JUNE MEETING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER THREE YEAR PERIOD TO KWG INSTITUTE ANTHROPOLOGY FOR RESEARCH ON TWINS AND EFFECTS ON LATER GENERATIONS OF SUBSTANCES TOXIC FOR GERM PLASM.
At the time of Rockefeller’s endowment, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that Institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer’s early tenure. In 1935, Verschuer left the Institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenic press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed up by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenic doctor’s journal he edited, that Germany’s war would yield a „total solution to the Jewish problem.“
Verschuer had a long-time assistant. His name was Josef Mengele. On May 30, 1943, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz.
Verschuer notified the German Research Society, „My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmführer [captain] and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsführer [Himmler].“
Mengele began searching the boxcar arrivals for twins. When he found them, he performed beastly experiments, scrupulously wrote up the reports and sent the paperwork back to Verschuer’s institute for evaluation. Often, cadavers, eyes and other body parts were also dispatched to Berlin’s eugenic institutes.
Rockefeller executives never knew of Mengele. With few exceptions, the foundation had ceased all eugenic studies in Nazi-occupied Europe before the war erupted in 1939. But by that time the die had been cast. The talented men Rockefeller and Carnegie financed, the institutions they helped found, and the science it helped create took on a scientific momentum of their own.
After the war, eugenics was declared a crime against humanity–an act of genocide. Germans were tried and they cited the California statutes in their defense. To no avail. They were found guilty.
However, Mengele’s boss Verschuer escaped prosecution. Verschuer re-established his connections with California eugenicists who had gone underground and renamed their crusade „human genetics.“ Typical was an exchange July 25, 1946 when Popenoe wrote Verschuer, „It was indeed a pleasure to hear from you again. I have been very anxious about my colleagues in Germany…. I suppose sterilization has been discontinued in Germany?“
Popenoe offered tidbits about various American eugenic luminaries and then sent various eugenic publications. In a separate package, Popenoe sent some cocoa, coffee and other goodies.
Verschuer wrote back, „Your very friendly letter of 7/25 gave me a great deal of pleasure and you have my heartfelt thanks for it. The letter builds another bridge between your and my scientific work; I hope that this bridge will never again collapse but rather make possible valuable mutual enrichment and stimulation.“
Soon, Verschuer once again became a respected scientist in Germany and around the world. In 1949, he became a corresponding member of the newly formed American Society of Human Genetics, organized by American eugenicists and geneticists.
In the fall of 1950, the University of Münster offered Verschuer a position at its new Institute of Human Genetics, where he later became a dean. In the early and mid-1950s, Verschuer became an honorary member of numerous prestigious societies, including the Italian Society of Genetics, the Anthropological Society of Vienna, and the Japanese Society for Human Genetics.
Human genetics‘ genocidal roots in eugenics were ignored by a victorious generation that refused to link itself to the crimes of Nazism and by succeeding generations that never knew the truth of the years leading up to war. Now governors of five states, including California have issued public apologies to their citizens, past and present, for sterilization and other abuses spawned by the eugenics movement.
Human genetics became an enlightened endeavor in the late twentieth century. Hard-working, devoted scientists finally cracked the human code through the Human Genome Project. Now, every individual can be biologically identified and classified by trait and ancestry. Yet even now, some leading voices in the genetic world are calling for a cleansing of the unwanted among us, and even a master human species.
There is understandable wariness about more ordinary forms of abuse, for example, in denying insurance or employment based on genetic tests. On October 14, America’s first genetic anti-discrimination legislation passed the Senate by unanimous vote. Yet because genetics research is global, no single nation’s law can stop the threats.
A series of recurrent themes arose in Nazi medicine as physicians undertook the mission of cleansing the State: the devaluation and dehumanization of segments of the community, medicalization of social and political problems, training of physicians to identify with the political goals of the government, fear of consequences of refusing to cooperate with civil authority, bureaucratization of the medical role, and the lack of concern for medical ethics and human rights. Nazi physicians viewed the State as their primary “patient”; some came to see quarantine (ghettoization), exclusion (emigration), then extermination of an entire people as “treatment” required for the State’s health. These physicians thought of themselves as “biological soldiers” instead of healers and caretakers.5
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, as published in 1859, provided a selection mechanism for evolution, but not a trait transfer mechanism. Lamarckism was still a very popular candidate for this. August Weismann and Alfred Russel Wallacerejected the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics that Darwin had accepted and later expanded upon in his writings on heredity.[1]:108[2][3] The basis for the complete rejection of Lamarckism was Weismann’s germ plasm theory. Weismann realised that the cells that produce the germ plasm, or gametes (such as sperm and eggsin animals), separate from the somatic cells that go on to make other body tissues at an early stage in development. Since he could see no obvious means of communication between the two, he asserted that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was therefore impossible; a conclusion now known as the Weismann barrier.[4]
It is, however, usually George Romanes who is credited with the first use of the word in a scientific context. Romanes used the term to describe the combination of natural selection and Weismann’s germ plasm theory that evolution occurs solely through natural selection, and not by the inheritance of acquired characteristics resulting from use or disuse, thus using the word to mean „Darwinism without Lamarckism.“[5][6][7]
Following the development, from about 1918 to 1947, of the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, the term neo-Darwinian started to be used to refer to that contemporary evolutionary theory.[8][9]
The history of fascist ideology is long and it draws on many sources. Fascists took inspiration from sources as ancient as the Spartans for their focus on racial purity and their emphasis on rule by an élite minority. Researchers have also seen links between fascism and the ideals of Plato, though there are key differences between the two. Italian Fascism styled itself as the ideological successor to Ancient Rome, particularly the Roman Empire. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's view on the absolute authority of the state also strongly influenced fascist thinking. The 1789 French Revolution was a major influence insofar as the Nazis saw themselves as fighting back against many of the ideas which it brought to prominence, especially liberalism, liberal democracy and racial equality, whereas on the other hand, fascism drew heavily on the revolutionary ideal of nationalism. The prejudice of a "high and noble" Aryan culture as opposed to a "parasitic" Semitic culture was core to Nazi racial views, while other early forms of fascism concerned themselves with non-racialized conceptions of their respective nations.
FSK=16Die Geschichte des I.G. Farben Konzerns von 1930 bis 1948.Aufgrund einer 1947 erschienenen Dokumentation und der Akten der Nürnberger Prozesse konnten ...
The really disturbing is that it seems like that we are in loop and And are condemned to repeat the same destructive ideas of the same destructive people. Or why all things happens again the same way as they happend 100 years ago. Its not a coincidence its an incident.
So my Question at this point in time is - are these Luming-Science’s from the Nazi-Child-killing-Program the all time solution for the Stargate bioscience initiative that gave life a Best-before date like the Breakpoints in machines? What are Quantum Dots?
A significant number of Nazi persecutory policies stemmed from theories of racialhygiene, or eugenics. Such theories were prevalent among the international scientific community in the first decades of the twentieth century. The term “eugenics” (from the Greek for “good birth or stock”) was coined in 1883 by the English naturalist Sir Francis Galton. The term’s German counterpart, “racial hygiene” (Rassenhygiene), was first employed by German economist Alfred Ploetz in 1895. At the core of the movement’s belief system was the principle that human heredity was fixed and immutable.
Eugenics poster entitled „The Nuremberg Law for the Protection of Blood and German Honor.“ The illustration is a stylized map of the borders of central Germany upon which is imposed a schematic of the forbidden degrees of marriage between Aryans and non-Aryans and the text of the Law for the Protection of German Blood. The German text at the bottom reads, „Maintaining the purity of blood insures the survival of the German people.“
Credits:
US Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Hans Pauli
For eugenicists, the social ills of modern society—criminality, mental illness, alcoholism, and even poverty—stemmed from hereditary factors. Supporters of eugenic theory did not believe that these problems resulted from environmental factors, such as the rapid industrialization and urbanization of the late 19th century in Europe and North America. Rather, they advanced the science of eugenics to address what they regarded as a decline in public health and morality.
Eugenicists had three primary objectives. First, they sought to discover “hereditary” traits that contributed to societal ills. Second, they aimed to develop biological solutions to these problems. Finally, eugenicists sought to campaign for public health measures to combat them.
The International Impact of Eugenic Theories
Eugenics found its most radical interpretation in Germany, but its influence was by no means limited to that nation alone. Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, eugenic societies sprang up throughout most of the industrialized world. In Western Europe and the United States, the movement was embraced in the 1910s and 1920s. Most supporters in those places endorsed the objectives of American advocate Charles Davenport. Davenport advocated for the development of eugenics as “a science devoted to the improvement of the human race through better breeding.” Its supporters lobbied for “positive” eugenic efforts. They advocated for public policies that aimed to maintain physically, racially, and hereditarily “healthy” individuals. For example, they sought to provide marital counseling, motherhood training, and social welfare to “deserving” families. In doing so, eugenics supporters hoped to encourage “better” families to reproduce.
Efforts to support the “productive” members of society brought negative measures. For instance, there were efforts to redirect economic resources from the “less valuable” in order to provide for the “worthy.” Eugenicists also targeted the mentally ill and cognitively impaired. Many members of the eugenics community in Germany and the United States promoted strategies to marginalize segments of society with limited mental or social capacity. They promoted limiting their reproduction through voluntary or compulsory sterilization. View this term in the glossary Eugenicists argued that there was a direct link between diminished capacity and depravity, promiscuity, and criminality.
Members of the eugenic community in Germany and the US also viewed the racially “inferior” and poor as dangerous. Eugenicists maintained that such groups were tainted by deficiencies they inherited. They believed that these groups endangered the national community and financially burdened society.
More often than not eugenicists’ “scientifically-drawn” conclusions did little more than to incorporate popular prejudice. However, by employing “research” and “theory” to their efforts, eugenicists could assert their beliefs as scientific fact.
Nazi Racial Hygiene
German eugenics pursued a separate and terrible course after 1933. Before 1914, the German racial hygiene movement did not differ greatly from its British and American counterparts. The German eugenics community became more radical shortly after World War I. The war brought unprecedented carnage. In addition, Germany saw economic devastation in the years between World War Iand World War II. These factors heightened the division between those considered hereditarily “valuable” and those considered “unproductive.” For instance, some believed that hereditarily “valuable” Germans had died on the battlefield, while the “unproductive” Germans institutionalized in prisons, hospitals, and welfare facilities remained behind. Such arguments resurfaced in the Weimar and early Nazi eras as a way to justify eugenic sterilization View this term in the glossary and a decrease in social services for the disabled and institutionalized.
Nazi eugenics poster entitled „Feeble-mindedness in related families in four neighboring towns.“ This poster shows how „feeble-mindedness“ and alcoholism are passed down from one couple to their four children and their families. The poster was part of a series entitled, „Erblehre und Rassenkunde“ (Theory of Inheritance and Racial Hygiene), published by the Verlag für nationale Literatur (Publisher for National Literature), Stuttgart, Germany, ca. 1935.
Credits:
US Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Hans Pauli
By 1933, the theories of racial hygiene were embedded into the professional and public mindset. These theories influenced the thinking of Adolf Hitler and many of his followers. They embraced an ideology that blended racial antisemitism with eugenic theory. In doing so, the Hitler regimeprovided context and latitude for the implementation of eugenic measures in their most concrete and radical forms.
Racial hygiene shaped many of Nazi Germany’s racial policies. Medical professionals implemented many of these policies and targeted individuals the Nazis defined as “hereditarily ill”: those with mental, physical, or social disabilities. Nazis claimed these individuals placed both a genetic and a financial burden upon society and the state.
Nazi authorities resolved to intervene in the reproductive capacities of persons classified as “hereditarily ill.” One of the first eugenic measures they initiated was the 1933 Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases (“Hereditary Health Law”). The law mandated forcible sterilization View this term in the glossary for nine disabilities and disorders, including schizophrenia and “hereditary feeblemindedness.” As a result of the law, 400,000 Germans were ultimately sterilized in Nazi Germany. In addition, eugenic beliefs shaped Germany’s 1935 Marital Hygiene Law. This law prohibited the marriage of persons with “diseased, inferior, or dangerous genetic material” to “healthy” German “Aryans.”
Conclusion
Eugenic theory provided the basis for the “euthanasia” (T4) program. This clandestine program targeted disabled patients living in institutions throughout the German Reich for killing. An estimated 250,000 patients, the overwhelming majority of them German “Aryans,” fell victim to this clandestine killing operation.
Author(s): United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC
Public Health under the Third Reich
These sources explore public health polices in Nazi Germany and their impacts during World War II and the Holocaust. Featuring films, photographs, and other sources, this collection shows how the regime built upon common concepts of public health to support Nazi racial ideology and the goals of conquest and expansion.
Public Health under the Third Reich
Nazi views on public health developed within the context of German cultural traditions and medical science in the early 20th century. Many of the regime’s public health priorities—such as eugenics, group exercise, and warnings against alcohol and tobacco—were first popularized during the years of the Weimar Republic. For example, in the 1930 film, “Born out of Necessity,” young Germans are urged to fight the negative health effects of life in modern cities by exercising together and engaging in wholesome social activities instead of drinking and smoking. These themes were later reflected in public health policies after the Nazi rise to power in 1933.
Nazi public health officials adopted many of these traditions and ideas, but the Nazi regime’s public health policies were concerned solely with promoting the health of so-called “Aryan” Germans. According to Nazi ideology, every member of the so-called „Volksgemeinschaft“ (German racial community) was like a single cell in the larger national body. Each individual had a duty to stay healthy and strong so that the German nation could conquer other peoples and colonize their lands. These theories about individual health and national strength were influential throughout Europe and the United States in the early 20th century. However, Nazi Germany’s policies were much more extreme than those of any other nation.
To help realize the regime’s goals, Nazi public health initiatives focused on increasing the size and health of the “Aryan” population. For example, the SS created the Lebensborn program in late 1935 in an attempt to raise the German birthrate. A brochure for the Lebensborn program explains that only pregnant women of “good health, genetic health, and Aryan descent” would be considered for admission to the program’s maternity homes.1 Nazi theories of eugenics taught that those born with mental or physical disabilities weakened the collective genetic health and strength of the Volksgemeinschaftand were „life unworthy of life.“2 The propaganda pamphlet “But Who Are You?”provides instructions for creating detailed ancestral charts in order to identify any threats to the “hereditary health” of the German nation. Health officials even urged German citizens to report sexual partners suspected of having a sexually transmitted disease, as shown in the 1938 propaganda poster, “Sexually Transmitted Disease Is an Obstacle to Marriage.”3
The Nazi regime urged Germans to adopt healthy lifestyles and personal habits. Like Weimar-era public health campaigns, Nazi health programs pushed the idea of a wholesome and “natural” lifestyle as a remedy for many of the health concerns in modern society. Nazi public health campaigns often promoted the importance of fresh air and nutritious foods, as shown in the 1941 Nazi propaganda film, “The English Disease.” A 1939 newspaper article titled “Nazis Hit Alcohol, Tobacco” records Nazi health leaders’ declarations that rejecting tobacco and alcohol in favor of a “wholesome life” was the “national duty” of all German youth.4
Nazi public health propaganda promoted a return to “natural” living, but Nazi health officials also embraced modern medical innovations to prevent and treat diseases in the so-called “Aryan” population. For example, the Nazi regime organized mass X-ray screenings for cancer, tuberculosis, and other illnesses. Nazi propaganda urged Germans to trust the advice of medical doctors over the „hocus pocus“ given by unqualified quacks offering miracle cures, as seen in the 1941 propaganda film on cancer treatment, „One in Eight.“5
Exercise and physical fitness were among the most important elements of the Nazi regime’s approach to public health. Nazi health officials called for every member of the so-called “Aryan” community to do regular physical exercises. Focusing particular attention on developing the health and strength of German youth, the Nazi regime embraced popular German pastimes like hiking and gymnastics. Nazi youth groups organized many outdoor group exercises intended to build a sense of camaraderie, and teenage boys in the Hitler Youth often engaged in competitive athletic games and military-style exercises to prepare them to become strong soldiers. On the other hand, Nazi ideology taught that young German women should do graceful exercises designed to help them become strong healthy mothers—as shown in the 1937 propaganda film, “Healthy Woman – Healthy Nation.” The regime also organized many athletic activities under the recreational “Strength through Joy” program. A 1937 photograph of a “Strength through Joy” event shows the popularity of these public exercise programs.
Campaigns and activities to promote physical fitness in Nazi Germany were designed exclusively for members of the so-called Volksgemeinschaft. Jews, Roma and Sinti, and other so-called „non-Aryans“ were gradually excluded from public spaces that hosted these events. Exercise was even used to persecute those targeted by the Nazi regime. German soldiers and concentration camp guards often used forced exercise as a form of public humiliation, physical abuse, or punishment.Taken sometime after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, a photograph of Soviet Prisoners of War forced to exerciseshows how German guards used physical exercises to abuse their prisoners in violation of international law.
Nazi persecution and the beginning of World War II affected the health of German citizens as well as the health of Jews, Roma and Sinti, and all those living under German occupation. The so-called “Aryanization” of the German medical profession meant that qualified Jewish health professionals no longer could provide medical care to their so-called “Aryan” patients. Like Dr. Erwin Schattner, many Jewish physicians were forced to close their practices on short notice after the Nazi Party took control of the state. Less qualified non-Jewish doctors often replaced Jewish physicians like Schattner, and the quality of medical care in Germany declined as the Nazi regime lowered academic standards for ideologically acceptable “Aryan” medical students.
The outbreak of World War II led to greater Nazi persecution of targeted groups and the application of drastic public health measures. The war created conditions that led directly to epidemics of contagious diseases such as typhus. Nazi propagandists and public health officials blamed Jews, Roma and Sinti, Slavic peoples, and other groups for causing such outbreaks. For example, an antisemitic Nazi propaganda poster made in 1941 for public display in German-occupied Poland asserts that “Jews Are Lice: They Cause Typhus.” German public health officials blamed Polish Jews for an outbreak of typhus in occupied Warsaw and urged authorities to construct a sealed ghetto, which cut off food supplies and caused massive starvation. As this 1941 photograph demonstrates, when typhus was discovered within the ghetto, German authorities imposed harsh quarantine measures. This oral history with Avraham Tory describes how Jewish medical providers in the Kovno ghetto were forced to treat typhus patients in secret after German police and Lithuanian collaborators burned a hospital to the ground with its staff and patients inside.
Nazi ideology taught that the health and “purity” of the German national body must be protected at all costs. The priorities of public health under Nazi rule reflected and supported Nazi racial ideology, theories of eugenics, and the regime’s goal of conquest. Nazi public health campaigns were designed to improve the collective health of the German Volksgemeinschaft at the expense of other populations, but Nazi policies had negative impacts on the health of the so-called „Aryan“ population as well.
Police Order on Tuberculosis X-Rays
Printed in both German and Polish, the featured poster shows how the hierarchical racial ideology of the Nazi Party can be seen in the regime’s public health policies. The poster announces a series of mandatory X-ray screenings for tuberculosis in the city of Rzeszów in occupied Poland in November 1943. German public health officials in occupied Poland expressed the racist belief that Poles were a “half-civilized people” who were incapable of maintaining their own basic hygiene, and they greatly feared that contagious diseases would spread to German occupation personnel.4
Because Nazi ideology placed a high value on physical strength, exercise became an important part of the Nazi regime’s public health programs. Nazi public health officials urged the entire German nation to exercise regularly, declaring that „wholesome life is a national duty.“1Nazi propaganda films depict young men hiking mountains and performing military-style physical exercises. Young women are often shown performing graceful movements and assisting children with their gymnastics training.2 Nazi ideology valued strength and athleticism. Nazi propagandists often exploited German athletes’ achievements to demonstrate the supposed superiority of the so-called „Aryan“ race.3
The Nazi regime used physical exercise as a way to increase the strength and overall health of the so-called „Volksgemeinschaft„ (German racial community). However, Germans in different positions of power also used exercise as a form of humiliation, punishment, and torture. Camp guards used physical exercise to punish concentration camp prisoners and forced laborers.4Because Nazi ideology claimed that „re-educating“ people required physical work and exercise, concentration camp guards also used forced exercise and physical labor to „rehabilitate“ gay men and other Germans imprisoned for supposedly „degenerate“ behaviors.5 Throughout occupied Europe, German forces made Jewish men publicly exercise to the point of exhaustion in order to humiliate them and demonstrate their supposed inferiority.
In the featured photograph, a group of Soviet prisoners of war (POWs) is forced to perform exercises in an internment camp in occupied Poland.6 Waging a war of annihilation against the Soviet Union, German military and security forcessystematically neglected, abused, and murdered Soviet POWs. Roughly 3.3 million Soviet soldiers died in German captivity during the war.7 Although the photographer is unknown and this image is undated, the rags tied around the mens‘ heads and feet suggest that the weather is cold. What other details might be revealed through a close examination of the men’s clothing and facial expressions?
The Nazi Party was obsessed with the supposed „racial purity“ and „hereditary health“ of the German people. Nazi ideology had absorbed and built upon widespread ideas of eugenics—the idea that human society could be improved through selective breeding.1 Nazi authorities tried to transform Germany by enacting laws and policies inspired by Nazi ideas about race and biology. Anyone who hoped to join the Nazi Party and its related organizations, perform military service, or practice law or medicine had to document „ancestral proof“ of „Aryan“ descent.2 After the adoption of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, „Aryan“ couples seeking to marry had to prove that neither spouse had Jewish ancestry or so-called „hereditary illnesses.“
Official policies around the concept of „ancestral proof“ greatly increased interest in genealogical research. Germans could certify their “racial purity” through the birth certificates, baptism records, and marriage certificates of their ancestors.3 Titled „But Who Are You?,“ the featured brochure assisted citizens with such research. It also promoted the sale of a publication called „My Book of Ancestors,“ which was designed to collect and organize all of a person’s genealogical data in one convenient place.
shows how the Nazi regime viewed the individual in relation to the family and the nation. According to Nazi ideology, every German was a single unit within the so-called „national community“ („Volksgemeinschaft„). German citizens were supposed to learn about their families‘ racial and medical histories in order to preserve and improve the so-called „hereditary health“ of the German nation as a whole. The perceived value of individual family members became linked to their ancestry. According to the brochure, „the real task of the genealogical chart…is to sharpen our awareness of the value of the genetic material inherited from our ancestors and the need for painstaking care of it.“4
But Who Are You?
Why and How One Engages in Family and Kinship Research:
A Concise Summary
Because proof of Aryan descent is demanded by the State and the Party, family and kinship research has become an important matter for every member of the German nation.1 Reich Minister Dr. Frick, among others, expressed this fact when he said, “We want every fellow German, in days to come, to take an interest in his ancestry and to realize what value his ancestors hold for him personally, for his family, and thus for his people, his race. This is essen[tial, if we are to know, in the new Germany, who is a member of the German people and who is not.” More than ever before, it has thus become the duty and responsibility of every fellow German to concern himself in depth with research on his family history. It is the aim of this short instruction booklet to provide him with expert advice in this pursuit.
Our German nation does not consist of larger or smaller numbers of individuals, but rather of families, generations, and kinship groups. Therefore, if we want to establish, on the one hand, which aptitudes and diseases are detrimental and deleterious to our nation and, on the other hand, which hereditary strains are useful to it, we first have to find the families in which the former or the latter genetic predispositions occur with greater or less frequency. This implies that, without family research, successful maintenance of hereditary health is not possible. The insight “Your blood, your greatest asset!” is of fundamental importance for all racial-biological measures, and hand in hand with it goes the answer to the age-old question, “Who are you?”
In addition, ancestry in terms of blood can be proven only by means of family research, and anyone who wants to furnish this proof must not limit himself to determining just his paternal forebears; rather, he must prepare a chart or list of his ancestors that shows all the persons, men and women, from whom he, the subject or starting point of the study, is descended in terms of blood.
One begins the preliminary work for compiling such a family tree in an expedient manner by writing down one’s own biographical data. As a basic principle, this information is written down in the following order: Surname or family name – all given names (underline name normally used) – date of birth (day, month, and year) – place of birth – religious affiliation – occupation or current position – path in life, schooling, vocational or professional training, positions, and sphere of activity, all with indications of the years and places. Space is to be left for subsequent entry of the date and cause of death and the burial place.
After recording your own biographical data and those of your spouse and children, write down, in the same way, the biographical data of your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents, if you know this information. For married persons, the place and date of the marriage are indicated above the bracket that links the fields of the two spouses. For family members who are no longer alive and for antecedents, the date and place of death, cause of death, and burial place are also to be provided.
Now, arrange the material thus obtained in order by generation, in this way: 1. Subject, 2. Parents, 3. Grandparents, 4. Great-grandparents, 5. Great-great-grandparents, etc.
and then enter in an ancestor table the names and dates you have determined, leaving any still-existing gaps for the time being.
To reduce the amount of paperwork, the following genealogical symbols are commonly used:
* born
~ baptized
° engaged
∞ married, also X
ο+ο divorced
ο-ο unmarried
† died
χ killed in war
χ† died of war wounds
ℑ buried
∏ cremated
□ male
ο female
Δ gender not known
It is self-evident that all records of family history absolutely must be true and verifiable. Therefore, make all entries, as a matter of principle, by referring to the relevant documents, such as birth certificates, baptismal certificates, marriage certificates, and death certificates, that is, the same documents that are to be submitted as proof of Aryan descent.
If these documents are not available as originals or certified copies, they must be requested from the appropriate civil registry offices that have existed everywhere in Germany since January 1, 1876. Certifications of births, baptisms, marriages, and deaths that occurred prior to January 1, 1876, will be issued by the relevant Protestant or Catholic pastoral offices.
In all requests to the civil registry offices and pastoral offices, be concise, and state the dates already known to you. Pre-printed forms for such inquiries are available in stores. The fees for a certified copy of a document are generally 60 pfennig, for short certifications 20 pfennig. In exceptional cases, for example, in the event of unemployment, which must be confirmed by the appropriate police authority or an office of the NSDAP, the fees will be waived upon request.
Where requests to the civil registry offices and pastoral offices fail to produce the desired result, an attempt must be made to obtain the missing proof in another way. For example, by asking relatives, and by looking through old family papers, journeyman’s logbooks, journeyman’s certificates of competence, master craftsman’s certificates, and all possible official documents, one will be able to determine many a missing date.
The church registers, as the most important sources for research on family history, generally report only the overall life cycle, that is, the birth, baptism, marriage, and death of forebears. Where those registers fall short or are no longer to be found, old books listing citizens, directories of trade-guild members, administrative records, and court records, as well as council minutes, sales contracts, records of inheritance taxes showing land ownership and other pertinent information, university matriculation records, wills, eulogies, and the like, can provide many a clue. Such lists and files, preserved in the state and municipal archives, libraries, courts, and town halls, are therefore to be examined closely.
It is this activity of searching in archives, libraries, and pastoral offices, like all tracing of ancestors’ steps in general, that makes family research so exciting and challenging, and therefore no one should have another party undertake this work for him. Only in particularly difficult cases should one avail oneself of the help of an experienced family researcher. The addresses of such researchers are available from the Reich Association for Kinship Research and Heraldry, Berlin NW 7, 26 Schiffbauerdamm.
For all those who want to undertake such research in greater detail, excellent textbooks and reference works are available for further instruction and for use in investigating family history. There are too many such works to list them all here. These texts and reference works can be consulted in all major libraries, and librarians and booksellers will gladly help anyone looking for advice. Information on tracing certain ancestors can also be provided, in exchange for reimbursement of the postage expenses, by the Reich Office for Kinship Research, Berlin NW 7, by reference to the large German Genealogical Index located on the premises.
To encourage serious research work, it is advisable to join one of the family-history associations, such as the Herold Society for Heraldry, Sigillography, and Genealogy in Berlin, or the Center for German Personal and Family History in Leipzig. There, in addition to good professional journals, the future researcher will find advice and guidance on all points of uncertainty that concern him, and the more advanced researcher will find multiple suggestions in the collections available.
From the statements above, it is readily evident how extraordinarily important it is for the novice in the field of family research to be presented at the outset of his work with a tool that enables him to enter his findings right away, in the proper place and clearly visible. As a result, from the very beginning he gets a clear idea of the structure of a family tree and, at the same time, a good overview of the current state of his discoveries about his family history.
This booklet, now already in its third edition, is such a tool for all those engaged in exploring their family history.
"My Book of Ancestors"
D.R.G.M.2 1 295 736
Third, improved edition 81,000 – 130,000
Price: only 25 pfennig
More detailed information about the form, contents, and price of the practical booklet are found on the last page of this publication and may be consulted there.
Filled out and with its factual data supplemented and confirmed by addition of the aforementioned documents, "My Book of Ancestors" is not only an extremely valuable collection of materials for one's own kinship history, but also the conclusive proof of descent for its owner and his descendants.
But the booklet’s chief value derives from the fact that it encourages everyone who makes use of it to engage more powerfully with research on family history in general. Thus it contributes to making the race-policy measures of the Reich government truly popular, and to spreading and deepening in the widest sections of our people an understanding of the great significance of fostering hereditary health.
For one thing is clear: Merely gathering and compiling names and dates and putting together a family tree is not enough! Rather, the real task of the genealogical chart, supplemented by notes containing genetic and sociological information, is to sharpen our awareness of the value of the genetic material inherited from our ancestors and the need for painstaking care of it, and, conversely, our awareness of what consequences of inherited harmful genetic material are to be mitigated and eradicated. But where this knowledge of the laws of the transmission and further development of inherited genetic material is present and their manifestations for better and for worse have been recognized, there will also be understanding for the insistence that everyone has a sacred obligation to his kin, and thus to his people, to keep his blood free of racially adverse influences and intermingling.
Very accurately, the well-known and admirable kinship researcher and deputy head of the Reich Office for Kinship Research, Erich Wasmannsdorf, says: "Researching one’s family tree is not just playing; if it is properly understood, the burning desire to serve the race and the people must always stand above it as its guiding star!"
Of lasting value for every member of the German nation!
After the Nazis lost the War the Nürnberg trail’s convicted German politicians, doctors and scientists for crime against humanity. In the aftermath a universal rules for medical and scientific ethics was declared to prevent and prepare the world so that this horror never happens again.
In Nazi Germany, German physicians planned and enacted the Euthanasia Program, the systematic killing of those they deemed „unworthy of life.“ The victims included the institutionalized mentally ill and physically impaired. Further, during World War II, German physicians conducted pseudoscientific medical experimentsutilizing thousands of concentration camp prisoners without their consent. Most died or were permanently impaired as a result. Jews, Poles, Russians, and Roma View this term in the glossary (Gypsies) were the most common victims of experimentation.
After almost 140 days of proceedings, including the testimony of 85 witnesses and the submission of almost 1,500 documents, the American judges pronounced their verdict on August 20, 1947. Sixteen of the doctors were found guilty. Seven were sentenced to death. They were executed on June 2, 1948.
Author(s): United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC
On December 9, 1946, an American military tribunal opened criminal proceedings against 23 leading German physicians and administrators for their willing participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity. This case is known as the „Doctors Trial“ (USA v. Karl Brandt et. al). On August 19, 1947, the judges of the tribunal delivered their verdict. But before announcing the guilt or innocence of each defendant, they confronted the difficult question of medical experimentation on human beings.
Several German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from those conducted before the war by German and American scientists. Furthermore they showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation. This argument was a great concern to two US doctors who had worked with the prosecution during the trial, Dr. Andrew Ivy and Dr. Leo Alexander.
As a result, on April 17, 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes. The memo outlined six points that defined legitimate medical research. The trial’s verdict of August 19 reiterated almost all of these points in a section entitled „Permissible Medical Experiments.“ It also revised the original six points into ten, and these ten points became known as the „Nuremberg Code.“
In the half century following the trial, the code informed numerous international ethics statements. Its legal force, however, was not well established. Nevertheless, it remains a landmark document on medical ethics and one of the most lasting products of the „Doctors Trial.“
Permissible Medical Experiments
From the trial transcriptFootnote 11
The great weight of the evidence before us is to the effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
Footnote reference1. From: Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946–APRIL 1949. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949–1953.
The 13 Nuremberg Trials, 1945-1949 - Harvard University
What if when after WW2 the Nazis have never stopped and high ranking officials like Members of the SS and scientists were able to continues their ideas and operations under new names and identities and were put place in the highest positions in the US and other countries around the world?
In 1945, as the Allies advanced into Germany and discovered a wealth of scientific talent and advanced research that had contributed to Germany’s wartime technological advancements. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff officially established Operation Paperclip on July 20, 1945, with the dual aims of leveraging German expertise for the ongoing war effort against Japan and to bolster U.S. postwar military research. The operation, conducted by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA), was largely actioned by special agents of the U.S. Army’s Counterintelligence Corps (CIC). Many selected scientists were involved in the Nazi rocket program, aviation, or chemical/biological warfare. The Soviet Union conducted a similar program, called Operation Osoaviakhim, that emphasized many of the same fields of research.
Operation Paperclip was a secret United States intelligence program in which more than 1600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians were taken from former Nazi Germany to the U.S. for government employment after the end of World War II in Europe, between 1945 and 59. Most were former members and leaders of the Nazi Party.
The operation, characterized by the recruitment of German specialists and their families, relocated more than 6000 experts to the US. It has been valued at US$10 billion in patents and industrial processes. Recruits included such notable figures as Wernher von Braun, a leading rocket-technology scientist. Those recruited were instrumental in the development of the U.S. space program and military technology during the Cold War. Despite its contributions to American scientific advances, Operation Paperclip has been controversial because of the Nazi affiliations of many recruits, and the ethics of assimilating individuals associated with war crimes into American society.
The operation was not solely focused on rocketry; efforts were directed toward synthetic fuels, medicine, and other fields of research. Notable advances in aeronauticsfostered rocket and space-flight technologies pivotal in the Space Race. The operation played a crucial role in the establishment of NASA and the success of the Apollo missions to the Moon.
The Recruitment Of A Nazi Doctor Known For Human Experimentation Sparked Public Outrage, So He Was Quietly Relocated Outside The US
Among the scientists who were brought to the United States was Major General Dr. Walter Schreiber. Schreiber was the Surgeon General of the Third Reich, and was initially brought over because US officials believed he was working on a vaccine program for Hitler-controlled Germany. This was alledgly a cover-up as it was soon disclosed to the public that Schreiber committed war crimesat concentration camps during WWII. When Schreiber’s record became public, the United States quickly and quietly made arrangements for Schreiber and his family to move to Argentina.
Two Hundred and Eleventh Day Monday; 26 August 1946
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Witness, will you kindly give the Tribunal some brief particulars about yourself, about your career, and about your scientific and educational activities?
SCHREIBER: I am 53 years of age. I was born in Berlin and am a Professor of Medicine. I studied medicine at the Universities of Berlin, Tubingen, and Greifswald. I passed the State medical examination at Greifswald in 1920. 1 received my degree and was made a Doctor of Medicine.
In 1940 1 became teacher of Hygiene and Bacteriology at the University of Berlin and in 1942 Professor at the Military Medical Academy. I have been an active military physician since 1921. 1 have held various positions as a garrison physician, and have been a division physician since 1929, although I only did scientific work as a hygienist and bacteriologist.
I carried out my work as a scientist and a professor at the Universities of Berlin and Freiburg in Breisgau. After 1929 1 was first in Freiburg, later hygienist at the Wehrkreiskommando, in Berlin, and finally during the second World War hygienist and bacteriologist at the headquarters of the High Command of the Army. I then became section chief in the High Command of the Army and was in charge of the science and health departments in the Army Medical Inspectorate and finally head of the Scientific Department, Group C, of the Military Medical Academy. In this capacity I was in charge of the scientific institutes of the Academy in Berlin.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: What was the last military rank you, held, and what position did you occupy in the German Army?
SCHREIBER: I was Generalarzt, that is Major General in the Medical Service. My last position was that of medical officer in charge of the military and civilian sector of Berlin, but only from 20 to 3,0 April 1945.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: What was the reason for your making the statement to the Soviet Government?
SCHREIBER: In the second World War things occurred on the German side which were against the unchangeable laws of medical ethics. In the interests of the German people, of medical science in
548
26 Aug. 46
Germany, and the training of the younger generation of physicians in the future, I consider it necessary that these things should be thoroughly cleared up. The matters in question are the preparations for bacteriological warfare, and they give rise to epidemics and experiments on human beings.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Why did you make this statement only on 10 April 1946 and not before that date?
SCHREIBER: I had to wait and see whether this Court itself might not raise the question of bacteriological warfare. When I saw that it did not raise this question I decided in April to make this statement.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Thus, as a prisoner of war, you had the opportunity of following the Trial at Nuremberg?
SCHREIBER: Yes, in the prison camp German newspapers were available in the club room. In addition, there was the Prisoner-of-War News printed in Soviet Russia, which reported regularly on the Trial.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Witness, will you kindly tell us what you know about the preparations by the German High Command for bacteriological warfare?
SCHREIBER: In July 1943, the High Command of the Wehrmacht called a secret conference, in which I took part as representative of the Army Medical Inspectorate. This conference took place in the rooms of the General Wehrmacht Office in Berlin, in the Bendler Strasse, and was presided over by the Chief of Staff of the General Wehrmacht Office, a colonel. I do not remember the name of this colonel. The colonel said by way of introduction that as a result of the war situation the High Command authorities now had to take a different view of the question of the use of bacteria as a weapon in warfare from the one held up till now by the Army Medical Inspectorate. Consequently, the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, had charged Reich Marshal Hermann Goering to direct the carrying out of all preparations for bacteriological warfare, and had given him the necessary powers.
A bacteriological warfare group was formed at this meeting. The members of this group were essentially the same gentlemen who had been taking part in the conference, that is, Ministerial Director Professor Schuhmann of the science section of the Army Armaments Office; Ministerial Councillor Stantin of the Army Armaments Office, Weapons Examination Section; Veterinary General Professor Richter, as representative of the Veterinary Inspectorate, and another younger veterinary officer of the Army Veterinary Inspectorate; and from the Army Medical Inspectorate, Chief Medical Officer Klieve; the latter only as an observer, however. In addition, there was a staff officer of the Luftwaffe as representative of the High Command of
549
26 Aug. 46
the Luftwaffe, a staff officer of the Armaments Office as its representative, a well-known zoologist, and a botanist. But I do not know the names of these gentlemen.
At a secret conference it was decided that an institute should be created for the production of bacterial cultures on a large scale, and the carrying out of scientific experiments to examine the possibilities of using bacteria. The institute was also to be used for experim6nting with pests which could be used against domestic animals and crops, and which were to be made available if they were found practicable. That is the substance of what was discussed at the conference in July 1943.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: And what was done after that? What do you know about that?
SCHREIBER: A few days later, I learned from the Chief of Staff of the Army Medical Inspectorate, Generalarzt Schmidt-Bruecken, who was my direct superior, that Reich Marshal Goering had appointed the Deputy Chief of the Reich Physicians' League, Blome, to carry out the work, and had told him to found the institute as quickly as possible in or near Posen. Among the people who worked at this institute in Posen were Ministerialdirektor Schuhmann, Ministerial Councillor Stantin, and a number of other doctors and scientists whom I do not know. I myself made a report of this secret conference on the same day to the Chief of Staff, and a few days later to the Army Medical Inspector, Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Handloser, since he was not in Berlin at the time.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV, And what do you know about the experiments which were being carried out for the purpose of bacteriological warfare?
SCHREIBER: Experiments were carried out at the institute in Posen. I do not know any details about them. I only know that aircraft were used for spraying tests with bacteria emulsion, and that insects harmful to plants, such as beetles, were experimented with, but I cannot give any details. I did not make experiments myself and do not know any details.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: You testified that the first secret conference devoted to these questions was presided over by a colonel belonging to the General Staff of the OKW. In whose name did he do so?
SCHREIBER: In the name of Field Marshal Keitel and the chief of- the General Wehrmacht Office, General Reinecke.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Who ordered you to take part in this conference?
SCHREIBER: The Chief of Staff, Generalarzt Schmidt-Bruecken, commissioned me to attend.
550
2G AU9. 46
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Was the Army High Command informed about it and did they know about the preparations for bacteriological warfare?
SCHREIBER: I assume so, for Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser, the medical chief, to whom I had reported the results of the conference was, in his capacity as army physician, that is, as Chief Medical Officer of the Army, directly subordinate to the Chief of the General Staff of the Field Army and had to report to him about it.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: What do you know about the participation of the Defendant Jodl in the carrying out of these measures?
SCHREIBER: I know nothing about any co-operation by Generaloberst Jodl.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Will you kindly tell us precisely what the reason was for the decision of the OKW to prepare for bacteriological warfare?
SCHREIBER: That was implied by the words of the president of the secret conference. The defeat at Stalingrad which, in contrast to the heavy fighting around Moscow in the winter of 1941 to 1942, was a severe blow for Germany, inevitably led to a reassessment of the situation, and consequently to new decisions. It was no doubt considered whether new weapons could be used which might still turn the tide of war in our favor.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: How do you explain that the German High Command did not put into effect these plans for the waging of bacteriological warfare?
SCHREIBER: The High Command probably did not carry out the plans for the following reasons: in March 1945, Professor Blome visited me at my office at the Military Medical Academy. He had come from Posen and was very excited. He asked me whether I could accommodate him and his men in the laboratories at Sachsenburg so that they could continue their work there; he had been forced out of his institute at Posen by the advance of the Red Army. He had had to flee from the institute and he had not even been able to blow it up. He was very worried at the f act that the installations for experiments on human beings at this institute, the purpose of which was obvious, might be easily recognized by the Russians for what they were. He had tried to have the institute destroyed by a Stuka bomb but that, too, was not possible. Therefore, he asked me to see to it that he be permitted to continue work at Sachsenburg on his plague cultures, which he had saved.
551
26 Aug. 46
I told Herr Blome that Sachsenburg was no longer under my command and for that reason I could not give him my consent, and I referred him to the Chief of the Army Medical Service, Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser. The next day Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser called me up and said that Blome had come to him and that he had an order from the Commander of the Reserve Army, Heinrich Himmler, and that on the strength of this order he was unfortunately compelled to give Blome a place in which to work at Sachsenburg. I took note of this but I had nothing more to do with it. Thus Blome had had to leave the Posen Institute. It is difficult to imagine what the work of such an institute entails. If one wants to cultivate plague bacteria on a large scale, one must have an adequate laboratory with appropriate precautionary measures. The personnel must be trained, for no German, not even an expert bacteriologist, has any experience with plague cultures. That takes time, and after its founding had been decreed a considerable interval elapsed before the institute at Posen began its work. Now it had suffered a severe blow; it was to carry on at Sachsenburg. During his visit Blome told me that he could continue his work at an alternative laboratory in Thuringia, but that this was not yet completed. It would take a few days or even a few weeks to complete it, and that he had to have accommodation until then. He added that if the plague bacteria were to be used when the military operations were so near to the borders of Germany, when units of the Red Army were already on German soil, it would, of course, be necessary to provide special protection for the troops and the civilian population. A serum had to be produced. Here again time had been lost, and as a result of all these delays it had never been possible to put the idea into effect.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Witness, will you kindly tell us now what you know about the illegal experiments carried out on human beings by German doctors?, I would ask you to testify very briefly as to, these questions, because they have already been sufficiently gone into in the Trial.
SCHREIBER: In the course of my duty I learned of a few things. In 1943, 1 believe it was in October, we had at the Military Medical Academy a scientific meeting of qualified doctors, so-called advisory doctors, and Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding lectured to the bacteriology section, which comprised about 30 gentlemen, on tests with typhus vaccine. The lecture showed that this Dr. Ding had inoculated prisoners with vaccines against typhus in the Buchenwald concentration camp, and that some while after, I do not know how long it was, he had artificially infected them with typhus by typhus-infected lice, and that according to whether these people contracted typhus or not, he based his conclusions on the protection
552
26 Aug. 46
which the vaccine had or had not given to the people in question. Since vaccines of various qualities had been given there were cases of death to be deplored.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Now, what was the scientific value of the experiments carried out by this Dr. Ding?
SCHREIBER: In my opinion they had no scientific value at all. In the course of the war, we had gained much knowledge in this field by empirical means and collected a great deal of experience. We knew our vaccines very well, and there was no need for these further tests. A number of the vaccines with which Ding experimented were not used at all in the Wehrmacht and were rejected.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Please continue your statements regarding this question.
SCHREIBER: There was a second matter which came to my notice in the course of my duties: the head of the hospital in Hohenlychen, SS-Gruppenfuehrer Professor Gebhardt, a talented surgeon, had carried out cranium operations on Russian prisoners of war and had killed the prisoners at certain intervals in order to observe the pathological changes, the progress of the bone changes on the basis of trepanation, the results of the operations, and so forth. And thirdly I attended, here in Nuremberg, a scientific meeting held by the High Command of the Luftwaffe.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: When did this take place?
SCHREIBER: The meeting was in 1943, 1 cannot say exactly when it was. I believe it was the autumn of 1943, but it may have been in the summer. At this meeting, which was held in the hotel near the station, two doctors, Dr. Kramer and Professor Holzlehner, director of the Psychological Institute at the University of Kiel, reported on experiments which they had carried out on behalf of the High Command of the Luftwaffe in Dachau on the inmates of the concentration camp. The purpose of the experiments had been to obtain data for the production of a new protective suit for airmen for use over the English Channel. Many German airmen had been sh6t down in the Channel and had, in a short time, met their death in the cold water before the rescue plane could reach them. Now, it was proposed to make a suit which would have some kind of insulating effect and protect the body against cold. For this purpose the persons on whom the experiments -were carried out had to be placed in water of varying low temperatures-ice cold water, water at zero, water of more than five degrees-I do not know exactly what all the temperatures were; and measurements were taken showing the decline of body temperature; they indicated the falling-off of body temperature by a graph-the temperature
553
26 AU9. 46
at the point between life and death. The subjects of the experiments wore various suits, the ordinary ones which were worn at that time, and others. I recall one special suit which developed a foam between the suit and the skin, that is, a layer of air which had an immediate insulating effect, and death from freezing could be postponed for a considerable time by this suit. Of course, these experiments, which were undertaken under, anaesthetics, cost a number of subjects their lives.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Please tell us what the Defendant Goering had to do with the experiments carried out at Dachau?
SCHREIBER: Stabsarzt Kramer said at the beginning of his lecture that the Defendant Goering had ordered these experiments, and that the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler had kindly made available the subjects for the experiments.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Do you yourself admit the possibility that similar experiments could -have been carried out without the knowledge of the Defendant Goering?
SCHREIBER: I cannot imagine that.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to this witness.
DR. LATERNSER: Witness, you are in a Russian prisoner-of-war camp?
SCHREIBER: Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: Where?
SCHREIBER: Near Moscow.
DR.LATERNSER: Do you hold any office in this camp?
SCHREIBER: No. I hold no office in the prisoner-of-war camp.
DR. LATERNSER: How did it come about that you made your statement on 10 April? Did you yourself take the initiative or were you asked to do so?
SCHREIBER: I myself took the initiative. When I heard the report of Dr. Kramer and Professor Holzlehner here in Nuremberg I was deeply shocked at the obviously perverted conceptions of some of the German doctors. Even at that time I already spoke about it to the Chief of the Army Medical Service, Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser, who shared my opinion; and when more and more such things were reported in the papers, I considered it my duty-I refer to what I said before-in the interest of the future of the German medical profession, and future generations, to
clear these things up once and for all.
DR. LATERNSER: That is enough on that point. The working group was to meet once a month in the rooms of the General Wehrmacht Office in Berlin. Do you know how many meetings took place?
SCHREIBER: No. I cannot tell you.
DR. LATERNSER: Do you know when the last meeting was?
SCHREIBER: I cannot say that either.
DR. LATERNSER: Were any meetings held?
SCHREIBER: Yes. Meetings were held.
DR. LATERNSER: Do you know whether there are records of these meetings?
SCHREIBER: I assume so, certainly. Professor Klieve informed me from time to time.
26 Aug. 46
DR. LATERNSER: Did you yourself belong to this working group?
SCHREIBER: No.
DR. LATERNSER: When and in what way did Professor Blome receive powers from Goering to make immediate arrangements for the medical and technical side of these preparations?
SCHREIBER: Immediately after this conference, perhaps on the very same day or even previously, because Blome's name was mentioned at the conference. At least, it was said he had been proposed, and two days later Herr Schmidt-Bruecken told me "Blome is the man."
DR. LATERNSER: And how do you know that?
SCHREIBER: From my immediate superior, Generalarzt Schmidt-Bruecken.
DR. LATERNSER: At what time did the spraying experiments from airplanes take place?
SCHREIBER: I cannot tell you.
DR. LATERNSER: What do you know about these spraying experiments?
SCHREIBER: The following: Bacterial emulsions with non-pathogenic bacteria which could be easily traced again-easily determined culturally were sprayed from planes on an experimental field near the institute at Posen.
DR. LATERNSER: Did you yourself see such experiments?
SCHREIBER: No.
DR.LATERNSER: How do you know that these experiments took place?
SCHREIBER: Klieve spoke to me about these spraying experiments and said that first a dye stuff was used which had more or less the same specific density as a bacterial emulsion. This had been poured over the land, and then experiments were made on models.
DR.LATERNSER: Did Klieve see these experiments himself?
SCHREIBER: I believe so.
DR.LATERNSER: You cannot say for sure?
SCHREIBER: I would not like to swear to it, but it is extremely probable.
DR. LATERNSER: You say that at this conference in July 1943 the colonel was acting for Field Marshal Keitel and General Reinecke?
SCHREIBER: Yes.
558
26 Aug. 4
DR. LATERNSER: How do you know that?
SCHREIBER: First of all, the meeting took place in General Reineeke7s office. The colonel who was presiding was his chief of staff, and we had been ordered to come to a meeting at the General Wehrmacht Office at such and such a time, and the colonel also mentioned Field Marshal Keitel's name.
DR. LATERNSER: But you cannot say whether it was actually ordered by him?
SCHREIBER: No, I did not see the order.
DR. LATERNSER: Well, then you do not know it?
SCHREIBER: No, I only know what the colonel told us officially.
DR. LATERNSER: You also said you supposed the High Command of the Army had been informed, namely, by Professor Handloser.
….
In the Name of Eugenics traces the history of the eugenics movement in the United States and Britain, beginning in the nineteenth century and continuing up to the mid-1980s and was the first significant analysis of eugenics after a long period during which the movement had been ignored as a subject of popular and scholarly interest. Eugenics purported to provide a scientific solution to a whole set of perceived societal ills by encouraging individuals with desirable traits to produce more offspring (positive eugenics) and by preventing those with less desirable traits from producing offspring (negative eugenics). Daniel Kevles weaves the history of the developing sciences of evolutionary biology and genetics into his narrative of the development of and debates over eugenics. He points out the intersections between eugenics and developing measures of intelligence, describing the misuse of such tests for determining those who were“ feebleminded“ and thus, in some cases, candidates for institutionalization or sterilization. In the United States, the eugenics movement fostered the implemention of laws allowing for involuntary sterilization of individuals determined to be suffering from hereditary ills such as criminality, low intelligence, and alcoholism. While the Nazi use of eugenic science in the“ final solution“ during World War II exposed the danger of eugenic ideals, Kevles describes the persistence of eugenic thinking in later discussions of race and intelligence, reproductive technologies, and genetics. Prenatal testing for genetic disorders and in vitro fertilization, gaining prevalence in the late 1970s and early 1980s, raised the question of eugenics once again, though with parents rather than government authorities providing the key decisions about genetic desirability. Kevles concludes by examining the interplay between private reproductive choices and public social goods: if society makes such technologies available, is society also willing to support the choices couples make? In the context of the science and religion dialogue, Kevles notes that religion played an important role in the history of eugenics. Eugenic scientists urged society to adopt eugenics as a new religion, even writing new creeds, catechisms, and commandments to guide true believers in hereditary progress. Theologians and religious leaders were recruited to advocate for eugenic ideals. In the United States, the American Eugenics Society sponsored a sermon contest and received several hundred entries, each interpreting biblical texts or religious tenets as supportive of eugenic ideals. The eugenics movement, in this respect, advocated for a constructive relationship between science and religion, with religion adopting what was viewed as legitimate science in the service of“ human betterment.“ Christine Rosen’s more recent Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement (also included in the ISSR Library) provides an in-depth treatment of the sermon contest and of the interplay between faith and science in the eugenics movement. Eugenics continues to arise in discussions of the relationship between new technologies focused on reproduction and genetics, often in the context of arguments about the potential ethical dangers of a particular procedure or technology. In the Name of Eugenics serves to provide key insights into how eugenic ideas persisted throughout the twentieth century, and to show the key features of the eugenics movement as it developed. Given the ongoing relevance and citation of eugenics in ethical and theological discussions in the context of science and technology, Kevles‘ contribution to understanding the history of eugenics …
Chemical And Biological Weapons Scientists Were Highly Sought After
As WW II was ending and American intelligence officers began to get a full picture of how extensive the German war machine had been, they realized the US was far behind Germany when it came to chemical and biological weapons. Thus, American leaders reportedly wanted to recruit chemical and biological weapons scientists.One scientist that the US coveted was Dr. Eugen Haagen, who was well known for developing a vaccine to Yellow Fever. As a doctor and follower of Hitler, Haagen performed experiments on humans while developing biological weapons. He was one of hundreds of chemists and medical doctors that the US sought to bring to America to develop weapons in preparation for a possible war against the Soviet Union.Haagen did end up working in the US via Operation Paperclip for five years as a „germ weapons“ researcher; however, French authorities eventually caught up with Haagen and he was tried for war crimes.
HHS/USDA Select Agents and Toxins List of biological agents and toxins
and Title 42 CFR (Public Health) Part 73 Select Agents And Toxins
List of “biological agents and toxins have been determined to have the potential to pose a severe threat to both human and animal health, to plant health, or to animal and plant products. An attenuated strain of a select agent or an inactive form of a select toxin may be excluded from the requirements of the Select Agent Regulations.” – READ
2014 – Ban on gain-of-function
In 2014, several breaches of protocol at US government laboratories brought matters to a head. The news that dozens of workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) might have been exposed to anthrax, that vials of smallpox virus had been left lying around in an NIH storeroom, and that the CDC had unwittingly sent out samples of ordinary influenza virus contaminated with H5N1, shook faith in the country’s biosafety procedures. Over 200 scientists signed the Cambridge Working Group declaration arguing for a cessation of experiments creating potential pandemic pathogens “until there has been a quantitative, objective and credible assessment of the risks, potential benefits, and opportunities for risk mitigation, as well as comparison against safer experimental approaches”.
Criminal Charges concerning Bioterrorism Acts and Mass Murder.
Reminder. April 2020 both Pfizer and Moderna in their SEC filings unambiguously referred to their mRNA technology as “experimental gene therapy”, not a vaccine.
Dr Martin refers to Ralph Baric’s CV – PDF, ARCHIVE
Dr Martin stated: “spike protein associated with any modification of coronavirus is in fact a biological weapon”
“19. SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV)”
“20. SARS-CoV/SARS-CoV-2 chimeric viruses resulting from any deliberate manipulation of SARS-CoV-2 to incorporate nucleic acids coding for SARS-CoV virulence factors”
Excluded Attenuated Strains of HHS Select Agents, Section 73.3(e)Excluded agents – “SARS-Coronavirus” – READ, which is specific to SARS-CoV – READ, not SARS-CoV-2 (see nomenclature – TIMELINE)
A state of emergency is a situation in which a government is empowered to put through policies that it would normally not be permitted to do, for the safety and protection of its citizens. A government can declare such a state before, during, or aftera natural disaster, civil unrest, armed conflict, medical pandemic or epidemic or other biosecurity risk.
Under international law, rights and freedoms may be suspended during a state of emergency, depending on the severity of the emergency and a government’s policies.[1]
In Germany for example the Weimar Constitution (1919–1933)[38] allowed states of emergency under Article 48 to deal with rebellions. Article 48 was often invoked during the 14-year life of the Weimar Republic, sometimes for no reason other than to allow the government to act when it was unable to obtain a parliamentary majority.
In the postwar Federal Republic of Germany the Emergency Acts state that some of the basic constitutional rights of the Basic Law may be limited in case of a State of Defence, a state of tension, or an internal state of emergency or disaster(catastrophe). These amendments to the constitution were passed on 30 May 1968, despite fierce opposition by the so-called extra-parliamentary opposition (see German student movement for details).
Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
Democracies use states of emergency to manage a range of situations from extreme weather events to public order situations. Dictatorial regimes often declare a state of emergency that is prolonged indefinitely for the life of the regime, or for extended periods of time so that derogations can be used to override human rights of their citizens usually protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).[2]In some situations, martial law is also declared, allowing the military greater authority to act. In other situations, emergency is not declared and de facto measures taken or decree-law adopted by the government. Nicole Questiaux (France) and Leandro Despouy (Argentina), two consecutive United Nations Special Rapporteurs, have recommended to the international community to adopt the following „principles“ to be observed during a state or de facto situation of emergency: Principles of Legality, Proclamation, Notification, Time Limitation, Exceptional Threat, Proportionality, Non-Discrimination, Compatibility, Concordance and Complementarity of the Various Norms of International Law (cf. „Question of Human Rights and State of Emergency“, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/19, at Chapter II; see also état d’exception).
The state of emergency can be abused by being invoked. An example would be to allow a state to suppress internal opposition without having to respect human rights. An example was the August 1991 attempted coup in the Soviet Union (USSR) where the coup leaders invoked a state of emergency; the failure of the coup led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Derogations by states having ratified or acceded to binding international agreements such as the ICCPR, the American and European Conventions on Human Rights and the International Labor Conventions are monitored by independent expert committees, regional Courts and other State Parties.[7]
The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows the government to freeze assets, limit trade and confiscate property in response to an „unusual and extraordinary threat“ to the United States that originates substantially outside of it. As of 2015 more than twenty emergencies under the IEEPA remain active regarding various subjects, the oldest of which was declared in 1979 with regard to the government of Iran. Another ongoing national emergency, declared after the September 11 attacks, authorizes the president to retain or reactivate military personnel beyond their normal term of service.[139]
In 2020, it was common for states to enact a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[140]
On 8 September 2023, United States President Joe Biden extended the state of emergency declared by George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks.[142]
An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States is an authorization granted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)under sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as added to and amended by various Acts of Congress, including by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013(PAHPRA), as codified by 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, to allow the use of a drug prior to approval.[1] It does not constitute approvalof the drug in the full statutory meaning of the term, but instead authorizes the FDA to facilitate availability of an unapproved product, or an unapproved use of an approved product, during a declared state of emergency from one of several agencies or of a „material threat“ by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
In the United States, EUAs are authorized by Section 564 of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938 (Public Law 75-717) as added and subsequently amended by the Project BioShield Act of 2004 (S. 15, Public Law 108–276) for funding of the development and procurement of medical countermeasures against CBRNthreats, the Pandemic and All-HazardsPreparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013(H.R. 307, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 113–5 (text) (PDF)), the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 (H.R. 34, Public Law 114–255) and Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 115–92 (text) (PDF) of 2017 (no short title).
CDC issued initial Emergency Use Instructions (EUI) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on November 17, 2021, and another EUI for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine on February 11, 2022.
New EUI for these vaccines were issued August 23, 2024. EUI provide information about emergency use of FDA-approved medical products that may not be included in or differ in some way from the information provided in the FDA-approved labeling (package insert). See below the CDC-issued EUI fact sheets for healthcare providers and recipients/caregivers regarding Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.
The DOE was created in 1977 in the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis. It sponsors more physical science research than any other U.S. federal agency, the majority of which is conducted through its system of National Laboratories.[3][4] The DOE also directs research in genomics, with the Human Genome Project originating from a DOE initiative.[5]
President Carter created the Department of Energy with the goal of promoting energy conservation and developing alternative sources of energy. He wanted to not be dependent on foreign oil and reduce the use of fossil fuels.[17] With international energy’s future uncertain for America, Carter acted quickly to have the department come into action the first year of his presidency. This was an extremely important issue of the time as the oil crisis was causing shortages and inflation.[18] With the Three-Mile Island disaster, Carter was able to intervene with the help of the department. Carter made changes within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in this case to fix the management and procedures. This was possible as nuclear energy and weapons are responsibilities of the Department of Energy.[19]
In December 1999, the FBI was investigating how China obtained plans for a specific nuclear device. Wen Ho Lee was accused of stealing nuclear secrets from Los Alamos National Laboratory for the People’s Republic of China. Federal officials, including then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, publicly named Lee as a suspect before he was charged with a crime. The United States Congress held hearings to investigate the Department of Energy’s mishandling of his case. Republican senators thought that an independent agency should be in charge of nuclear weapons and security issues, not the Department of Energy.[20] All but one of the 59 charges against Lee were eventually dropped because the investigation finally proved that the plans the Chinese obtained could not have come from Lee. Lee filed suit and won a $1.6 million settlement against the federal government and news agencies.[21] The episode eventually led to the creation of the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the department.
Title XVII of Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the DOE to issue loan guarantees to eligible projects that „avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases“ and „employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued“.[24] In loan guarantees, a conditional commitment requires to meet an equity commitment, as well as other conditions, before the loan guarantee is completed.[25]
On March 28, 2017, a supervisor in the Office of International Climate and Clean Energy asked staff to avoid the phrases „climate change„, „emissions reduction„, or „Paris Agreement“ in written memos, briefings or other written communication. A DOE spokesperson denied that phrases had been banned.[27][28]
In a May 2019 press release concerning natural gas exports from a Texas facility, the DOE used the term ‚freedom gas‘ to refer to natural gas. The phrase originated from a speech made by Secretary Rick Perry in Brussels earlier that month. Washington Governor Jay Inslee decried the term „a joke“.[29][30][31]
The Human Genome Project was a 15 year-long publicly funded project initiated with the objective of determining the DNA sequence of the entire euchromatic human genome.[8][9] The idea of such a project originated in the work of Ronald A. Fisher, whose work is also credited with later initiating the project.[10]
Although the sequence of the human genome has been completely determined by DNA sequencing in 2022, it is not yet fully understood. Most, but not all, genes have been identified by a combination of high throughput experimental and bioinformatics approaches, yet much work still needs to be done to further elucidate the biological functions of their protein and RNAproducts (in particular, annotation of the complete CHM13v2.0 sequence is still ongoing[2]).
SPARTA: Simple Program for Automated reference-based bacterial RNA-seq Transcriptome Analysis
Benjamin K Johnson et al. BMC Bioinformatics. 2016.
Unipro UGENE NGS pipelines and components for variant calling, RNA-seq and ChIP-seq data analyses. PeerJ. 2014;2 doi: 10.7717/peerj.644. – DOI – PMC – PubMed
Fully automated pipeline for detection of sex linked genes using RNA-Seq data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2015;16(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s12859-015-0509-0. – DOI – PMC – PubMed
RAP: RNA-Seq Analysis Pipeline, a new cloud-based NGS web application. BMC Genomics. 2015;16:S3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-16-S6-S3. – DOI – PMC – PubMed
Computational analysis of bacterial RNA-Seq data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(14) doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt444. – DOI – PMC – PubMed
De novo assembly of bacterial transcriptomes from RNA-seq data. Genome Biol. 2015;16:1. doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0572-2. – DOI – PMC – PubMed
For his work in statistics, he has been described as „a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science„[8][9]and „the single most important figure in 20th century statistics“.[10]
The human genome project intends to intervene in the nature of human beings with all the means at their disposal.
Like the Eugenics-Record Office or the Racial Hygiene policy under Hitler it is build to install the infrastructure and rules to categorize, drive, surveil and mutate humans and their genes, To optimize the human race, like cattles or pigs by its Breeder.
And this by the way is the root of all scientific racism & racial hygiene policies that put humans on a value chain on a statistics basis of their genes in drawers.
This is segregation by design and it stigmatized and targeted genetic so called „defectives“ as mutants and as a burden for society so in the end it leads to exclusion and/or a correction action for the defective’s.
Tracing the Eugenicists' technofascist takeover from World War 2 until present day by looking at the role of Ghislaine Maxwell's two leading men: her father Robert Maxwell and her 'business partner' Jeffrey Epstein. In the first part I go through some fascinating history to set the stage, and then I get to more & more recent events to show that SCIENCE was co-opted to direct humanity into our current, near devastating condition.
Topics covered: US Army's "Project RUSTY", NASA & JPL, Chinese studies of Population Control, Cybernetics, Wuhan connection, Qian Xeusen (who?) and more.
I deeply appreciate all your letters, cards, gifts, prayers etc. God bless you!
formally began in 1990 as a joint effort between the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The goals of the project were:
identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA,
determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
store this information in databases,
improve tools for data analysis,
transfer related technologies to the private sector, and
address the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that may arise from the project.
The variety of life forms and the variety within species is the result of the organization and functioning of DNA within our cells. Unlocking the secrets of DNA is the holy grail of the biological sciences and actually, of mankind itself.
What’s a genome? And why is it important?
A genome is all the DNA in an organism, including its genes. Genes carry information for making all the proteins required by all organisms. These proteins determine, among other things, how the organism looks, how well its body metabolizes food or fights infection, and sometimes even how it behaves.
DNA is made up of four similar chemicals (called bases and abbreviated A, T, C, and G) that are repeated millions or billions of times throughout a genome. The human genome, for example, has 3 billion pairs of bases.
The particular order of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs is extremely important. The order underlies all of life’s diversity, even dictating whether an organism is human or another species such as yeast, rice, or fruit fly, all of which have their own genomes and are themselves the focus of genome projects. Because all organisms are related through similarities in DNA sequences, insights gained from nonhuman genomes often lead to new knowledge about human biology.
The principle organizations involved in Genome research were the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundationand the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Salt Lake City.
In 1987, the bulk of NSF’s $32.7 million budget was being spent on “the research infrastructure”.
The blueprint for the National Science Foundation (NSF) grew from the report Science— The Endless Frontier, written by Vannevar Bush in 1945 (2). The original ideas for NSF, as propounded by Bush andSenator Harley Kilgore, were modified by postwar events and eventually led to legislation creating the foundation in 1950. The principal purpose of the NSF was to continue the Federal Government’s role in sponsoring basic research, a role that developed during World War II (9,14).
Biology at NSF is supported through its Directorate of Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. In fiscal year 1987, NSF spent an estimated $32.7 million on research related to gene mapping and sequencing. Of this amount, only $200,000 went for focused projects on gene mapping and sequencing of nonhuman organisms; the bulk was for basic research ($13.7 million) and for the research infrastructure, such as development of methods, new scientific instruments, databases, and repositoriesand support of instrumentation centers($19 million). Page 104
But it was also noted that the military health care and medical researchers would have an interest in participating and they could provide valuable “resources” to the project.
The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology(AFIP) is an international treasure house of tissue samples and microscopic slides spanning the full range of human disease. Its tissue collection is used by pathologists and biomedical researchers throughout the world. AFIP began as the Army Medical Museum in 1862. It became the AFIP in 1949, when the Navy and Air Force joined with the Army in support of it, and the role of the institute has expanded steadily since then. Today AFIP constitutes the largest organization of research and diagnostic pathologists in the world, The institute has received more than 2.2 million cases (tissue or slides from patients) from over 50,000 pathologists affiliated with more than 19,000 hospitals and clinical facilities.
The military biomedical research community would have an interest in map and sequence data because investigations of the effects of chemical and biological weapons would include the study of genesthat are particularly vulnerable to attack and the construction of vaccines or other defensive measures. Pg 106
By the mid to late 80’s knowledge and technology had reached the point where it was possible to make giant leaps forward in discovering the secrets of DNA but it would require massive funding and research cross-cutting many diverse areas of science so in 1988, a report was prepared for Congress by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). It was titled, “Mapping Our Genes–Genome Projects: How Big? How Fast?”3
It’s a 200 page report that attempts to identify the logistical and political considerations that would have to be addressed to go forward with a Manhattan Project for genetic research.
“Construction of maps of DNA markers was undertaken in the early 1980s, The two largest collections of markers were developed by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), a private philanthropy, and Collaborative Research, Inc., a private corporation. Dozens of university researchers and other private firms also contributed to this kind of genetic map.
In 1985, DOE began planning the Human Genome Initiative to develop research tools for molecular genetics…
DOE considered the initiative an extension of its ongoing work in molecular biology
largely focused on detectingmutations and other biological effects of radiation and energy production
that would take advantage of research staff and instruments located at the national laboratories, which are funded by DOE,
DOE held several public meetings to discuss the technical possibilities.
“Because both DOE and NIH have major research interests in the Human Genome Project and because of the need for centralized planning and coordination of the 15-year project, NIH and DOE signed a formal Memorandum of Understanding in the fall of 1988 „to foster interagency cooperation that will enhance the human genome research capabilities of both agencies.“
The document, which provides the foundation for NIH-DOE collaboration to achieve the goals of the U.S. Human Genome Project, calls for regular meetings of the Joint NIH-DOE Subcommittee on the Human Genome. The subcommittee is made up of members of the NIH Program Advisory Committee on the Human Genome and the DOE Health and Environmental Research Advisory Committee.”
The report included reference to a debate concerning the scope of the Human Genome Project – whether it would be limited to a few genes or whether the project should have the goal of mapping the entire structure of DNA.
The Cold Spring Harbor discussion was followed by a series of meetings held by HHMI, NIH, DOE, NRC, OTA, and others, Plans for special research initiatives by NIH, DOE, and HHMI have resulted from these and other discussions. A few private corporations have also been established (or are being established) to perform DNA sequencing and to develop research resources. Page 12
Cold Spring Harbor is a biological research laboratory on Long Island, New York. It has been in continuous operation since the turn of the century. In 1904, it became a major player in the Eugenics movement funded by the Carnegie Institute 5:
“Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics‘ racist aims.
Stanford President David Starr Jordan originated the notion of „race and blood“ in his 1902 racial epistle „Blood of a Nation,“ in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood. In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation’s social service agencies and associations.
The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, confinement or forced sterilization.
The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengeleworked in before he went to Auschwitz.” Edwin Black
The Howard Hughes Medical Institute has been involved in genetics research since it was founded with money from the Hughes estate. According to the history of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute,6
Howard Hughes wrote a will before his first marriage that provided for the creation of an institute for medical research. In 1947 following his recovery from a plane crash, Hughes sought the advice of professionals on how best to do that:
Mr. Hughes begins discussions that continue for several years with Dr. Mason, Alan Gregg, M.D., of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Hugh Morgan, M.D.,7 of Vanderbilt University (above), to seek advice on how best to support medical science.
As Dr. Morgan later recalled, a conversation takes place in an airplane hangar in which Mr. Hughes describes his objective for a medical research organization:
„He said he wanted to set up a Research Institute and operation in the field of medical sciences — he emphasized that he was interested in basic research, in probing into the genesis of life itself.
Between 1951 and 1953 Hughes funded a number of Research Fellows and then in 1953, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute was chartered in Delaware to engage in genetics research.
Hughes indicated that he wished HHMI to engage basic research “that probed into the genesis of life processes,” and HHMI’s charter indicates that the objective was “the promotion of human knowledge within the field of the basic sciences (principally, the field of medical research and education) and the effective application thereof for the benefit of mankind.”
At this point, it must be said that we recognize the fact that there were and are many good people involved in the Human Genome Project who have the best of intentions for mankind however, the size and nature of the project and the dispersion of the knowledge and technology provided tremendous opportunities for corruption, profit, and malevolence. It is the intent of this paper to focus on that dark side because the benefits of Human Genome research needs no exposure.
The simple description of the Human Genome project as a scientific effort to map human genetic structures fails to convey the true size and scope of the effort. From reading the 1988 OTA report, it isn’t clear that the OTA fully comprehended the magnitude of it either.
The Human Genome Project conjures up images of large scale projects such as the Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bomb, the Apollo Project for a manned Moon landing, the space station, or the superconducting supercollider. Genome projects do not belong in this category. Page 16
And perhaps they were right about the mapping itself but it is in the application of the genome knowledge where the project goes supernova. There are many projects since the inception in 1988 that with the benefit of hindsight can be linked to the Human Genome Project that would not necessarily be understood as such except by those at the very top of the pyramid of project knowledge and planning. That is especially true of the programs involving children.
Mapping of the genome and the potentialities cut across all disciplines, all government agencies, all committees of Congress. Universities, government and private sector researchers all over the world were working on it – and still others were working on technical ways to facilitate the research:
Excerpts:
Interpreting genome maps will require the combined efforts of individuals with expertise in structural biology, cell biology, population biology, biochemistry, genetics, computer science, and other fields. Page 59
The new technologies for genetics research will also help in the assessment of public health needs. Techniques for sequencing DNA rapidly, for example, should permit the detection of mutations following exposure to radiation or environmental agents. Susceptibilities to environmental and work place toxins might be identified as more detailed genetic linkage maps are developed, and special methods of surveillance can be used to monitor individuals at risk. By providing tools for determining the presence or absence of pathogens (e.g., bacteria and viruses) in large numbers of individuals as well as identifying genetic factors that render some human beings more susceptible to infection than others, genome projects might also yield methods for tracking epidemics through populations. Pg 60
Population biologists study populations by analyzing many individuals. They are interested in similarities and differences among individuals, among groups, among varieties, and among species. To address such questions as how geography and environment affect inheritance patterns of certain traits, a physical map and a complete sequence of a single reference genome are not particularly valuable. It would be more useful to have corresponding sequence information from widely diverse geographical areas, from various religious and ethnic subgroups, and from all races (9). Pg 76
On a technical level, the effort to map genetic structures promised to generate massive amounts of data that could not be easily shared without a central repository – a data warehouse that could be accessed by all researchers.
The flow of information from molecular biology is overwhelming the resources devoted to handling it. Federal agencies, HHMI, and other interested groups are acting to manage the deluge. Research dedicated to improving databases, maps, repositories, and research methods premises to increase efficiency overall by being once systematically what would otherwise be duplicated by many groups using more primitive technologies. Page 16
The Genome Data Base (GDB)8 was built at Johns Hopkins University in 1989 with a grant from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. It was completed in 1990 and in 1991, it was selected to become the Human Genome Project Central repository.
Beginning on 9/1/1991, the DOE and NIH took over funding and use of the database was “transformed”:
The primary mission shifted from supporting annual Human Gene Mapping workshops to supporting the international Human Genome Project (HGP).
The database itself changed from a stand-alone system to a component of the information infrastructure of the HGP.
Continuous data entry from sites around the world has replaced annual data entry at large meetings.
Annual publications, such as the HGM reports and the HGML plot books have been replaced with publication on demand.
A single GDB product has been replaced with a family of services, as ISQL backends, ftp, gopher, and WAIS servers have been added.
Full graphical user interfaces are replacing simple terminal emulation. Dial-up telephone access at 1200 baud has been replaced with direct network connection. GDB now even has its own internet domain, GDB. ORG.
A monolithic software system is being replaced with a modular design.
And all of this has been accompanied with exponential growth in the amount of data being managed.
Links are categorized into the following 4 types.
equivalent links are special original links to signify equivalent contents between KEGG GENES, COMPOUND, DRUG, REACTION databases and databases other than KEGG.
original links are extracted from the database entries provided by the GenomeNet DBGET system.
reverse links are derived from the original links by exchanging a source entry and its target entry.
indirect links are derived by combining two or more original links. Currently, links from KEGG GENES to REACTION via KO, and to COMPOUND via REACTION are available.
A major component of the research infrastructure was the NSFNET9 – what we call the Internet today. Originally, commercial traffic on the NSFNET was prohibited to ensure adequate bandwidth for researchers. The prohibition led to the proliferation of parallel commercial networks.
“In recognition of the fact that the network was growing beyond its research focus, in March, 1991, the NSFNET officially ushered in the next wave of Internet growth by modifying its Acceptable Use Policy to allow commercial use by „research arms of for- profit firms when engaged in open scholarly communication and research“. Between growing connections to research networks and increasing commercial traffic, the growth of the NSFNET over the next few years was rapid…”
Starting in 1990, over the next few years the NSF conducted a series of workshops and studies to plan for transition of the NSFNET to private industry. The vehicle that evolved to support this new architecture was a set of Network Access Points that acted as connection points for the commercial backbones so that the network would remain connected at the top level once the NSFNET was retired. In February, 1994, the NSF awarded contracts for establishment of four NAPs operating at 155 Mbps — one in New York operated by Sprint, one in Washington, D.C. operated by MFS, one in Chicago operated by Ameritech, and one in California operated by Pacific Bell.
So the decision was made to allow public access to the Internet only because open access was needed to facilitate the information sharing requirements of HGP researchers both during the basic research mapping phase and following. That assertion is confirmed by examining the history related to health care and education.
Flashback to the eugenics movement in California in the early 20th century:
California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the 20th century’s first decades, California’s eugenicists included potent but little-known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate Paul Gosney, Sacramento bankerCharles Goethe, as well as members of the California state Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.
As it was then, so it is now – schools, prisons and the military provide a target rich environment for medical researchers. In the early days of genetics research, index cards were used to keep track of the alleged genetically inferior to be used and disposed of in whatever way the planners decided. In Germany, prior to World War II, IBM assisted the Nazis by keeping the records on punch cards with the targeted populations being assigned numbers tatooed on their arms. When their number was selected, they were rounded up and placed in camps.
The difference now is that penning up the subjects in camps is no longer a requirement for medical research. New technologies allow for logical selection of “subjects” with surveillance and control of their movements using remote tracking “collars” – also known as Radio Frequency Identification Chips (RFID). And the capacity exists for massive storage of information – including the tracking data generated by RFID chips, remote sensing and data transmission equipment. And this all occurs at nearly the speed of light using fiber optic cables and satellites
Augmented body surveillance: Human microchip implantations and the omnipresent threat of function creep
With that as the background, we can now look at the planning for the applied science phase of the Human Genome Project.
In 1990, Senator John Glenn, Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee made a request of the GAO to study the potential benefits of automation of medical records and the factors that would inhibit the implementation.
In response to your request of December 4, 1990, we are reporting to you the results of our review of automated medical records. The report discusses the potential benefits that automation could make to the quality of patient care and the. factors that impede its use. We are making recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support automated medical records as part of the Department’s mandate to conduct research on outcomes of health care services.
In 1991, Senator Al Gore sponsored and successfully ushered through the Congress, the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 opening up the nation’s telecommunications
Sets forth Program requirements, including: (1) setting goals and priorities for Federal high-performance computing research, development, and networking; (2) providing for interagency coordination; (3) providing for oversight of the operation and evolution of the National Research and Education Network provided for in this Act; (4) improving software; (5) acceleration of high-performance computer system development; (6) technical support and research and development of software and hardware needed to address fundamental problems in science and engineering (Grand Challenges); (7) educating undergraduate and graduate students; and (8) providing for security.
Establishes an advisory committee on high-performance computing.
HHS Secretary Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., today announced a series of new steps toward creating a nationwide electronic health care information network. He said major elements of the new system could be in place for Medicare and Medicaid within 15 months, producing significant savings in health costs.
In the new system, health care insurance and billing will be handled by computer networks, eliminating most paperwork. When fully implemented, Americans would carry a single „health card,“ similar to bank and credit cards, enabling access to their own insurance coverage information. Billing would be performed electronically, and consumers as well as health care providers would no longer have to complete extensive paper forms.
Ultimately, most patient records could also be maintained electronically and accessed with the patient’s permission through the card and a PIN (personal identification number).
Notice the difference between the reason given for the initial study in 1990 and the reason given in 1992. Between those three years, you see the beginning of a cover up of the real reason for “The System” – and the making of an official myth that the national electronic medical records system was intended to save money and increase efficiency by eliminating claims paperwork. This is Government Mythology in the making. It serves the purpose of spinning yarns for lawmakers to sell to their constituents and to each other.
In January of 1993 when Clinton announced the formation of his Task Force on National Health Care Reform13, the GAO was already in the process of preparing another report for the Chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Committee.
Of course everybody remembers that Hillary Clinton headed up the committee because it was unprecedented for a first lady to actively engage in the business of government and they tried to do it behind closed doors. But the real project lead was Ira Magaziner. And what he was doing was redesigning the U.S. Health Care system to utilize the capabilities of the Internet to facilitate the “Postgenomicsf World” of applied genetics research.
Ira C. Magaziner currently the chairman of the Clinton Climate Initiative and the Clinton
Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative.
From 1993 through 1998, he served as Senior Advisor to President Clinton for Policy Development at the White House. In this capacity, he supervised the development and implementation of the administration’s policy for commercialization of the Internet and worked with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on the development of the President’s Health Reform Initiative. Mr. Magaziner also chaired a joint National Economic Council/National Security Council Initiative to increase US exports and served as a member of the National Domestic Policy Council.
Prior to his White House appointment, Mr. Magaziner earned respect as one of America’s most successful corporate strategists, building two successful corporate strategy consulting firms and assisting major corporations in developing their business strategies. Prior to forming his own companies, he worked in Boston, London and Tokyo for the Boston Consulting Group.
He also served as co-chairman of the National Commission on Skills of the American Workforce with former Labor Secretaries Bill Brock and Ray Marshall, co-authoring the landmark report „America’s Choice – High Skills or Low Wages.“ Mr. Magaziner graduated in 1969 as valedictorian from Brown University and attended Balliol College, Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. He has received honorary doctorate degrees from Brown University, the University of Rhode Island, the University of Maryland and the New England Institute of Technology.
Mr. Magaziner has served on the boards of numerous charitable and educational organizations nationally and in his home state of Rhode Island
Every aspect of the health care system would be affected by the legislation. Hundreds of pages of tightly written paragraphs detail sweeping government control of the health insurance industry: precise benefits that must be assured; insurance requirements for firms; a "national quality management program" to oversee the quality of health care services; medical education, and the training of physicians; the creation of model information systems; new public health initiatives; the establishment of new federal loans and guaranty and solvency funds; new assessments and taxes; rural health programs; a new long-term care program; malpractice reform; antitrust reform; new penalties to combat fraud and abuse; major changes in the Medicare program, including a prescription drug benefit and coverage of state and local government workers; billions of dollars in tax subsidies; new panels, advisory boards, and commissions; coordination of worker's compensation and auto insurance with the new standard benefits package; and dozens of other fundamental changes…
In essence, it was nationalization of the health insurance system with provisions to provide health care coverage to all – Health Care for All. The magnitude of it was overwhelming and as a result, political pressure from both sides of the aisle caused the project to be halted – or so people thought.
But the cease and desist orders from the public didn’t really stop anything. Large scale conversions like Ira Magaziner defined have to be broken up into phases anyway. Some pieces of the design take 3 years to implement. Some pieces might take 5 years. Some pieces might take 1 year. And a project of this scale isn’t just one project, it’s many projects running parallel with project leaders coordinating at the interface points (where one system intersects with another).
PRESIDENT CLINTON ANNOUNCES THE COMPLETION OF THE FIRST SURVEY OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN GENOME
Hails Public and Private Efforts Leading to This Historic Achievement
Today, at a historic White House event with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Clinton announced that the international Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics Corporation have both completed an initial sequencing of the human genome — the genetic blueprint for human beings.
He congratulated the scientists working in both the public and private sectors on this landmark achievement, which promises to lead to a new era of molecular medicine, an era that will bring new ways to prevent, diagnose, treat and cure disease. The President pledged to continue and accelerate the United States‘ commitment to helping translate this blueprint into novel healthcare strategies and therapies. He will underscore that this genetic information must never be used to stigmatize or discriminate against any individual or group. Our scientific advances must always incorporate our most cherished values, and the privacy of this new information must be protected.
Document Use and Credits
Publications and webpages on this site were created by the U.S. Department of Energy Genome Program’s Biological and Environmental Research Information System (BERIS). Permission to use these documents is not needed, but please credit the U.S. Department of Energy Genome Programs and provide the website
http://genomics.energy.gov
.
All other materials were provided by third parties and not created by the U.S. Department of Energy. You must contact the person listed in the citation before using those documents.
On January 20, 2001, George W. Bush took office as the 43rd President of the United States.
On April 1, 2001, the COMMUNIST Chinese captured one of our surveillance aircraftloaded with state of the art communications and monitoring equipment.
On September 11, 2001, two airplanes allegedly flew into the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 causing the buildings to collapse into their own footprints due to fire and structural failure and World Trade Center Building 7 simply fell down in perfect demolition symmetry later in the day, the Pentagon was hit by an airplane, and an airplane was shot down over Pennsylvania leaving only a small hole and scattered debris for 8 miles. Or so the Government and Media Mythologists told us.
On October 4, 2001 Florida officials announced that the first case of Anthraxwas diagnosed followed by anthrax letters mailed to politicians and mainstream media people.
And on February 11, 2002, George Bushshowed up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin with a facial injury and a ridiculous story about having choked on a pretzel. The purpose of his visit to the Medical College of Wisconsin was to unveil “his” proposal for “HealthSecurity”.
2005 – Pandemic Strategies, Roles and Responsibilities
2005 – Nationwide Health Information Network – “Network of Networks”
2006 – Executive Order 13410, Nationwide interoperable HIT Infrastructure
2008 – Patient Centered, Market-Based Health Care
Setting aside the whole “Terror, Terror, Terror” campaign, if you mapped out the major components of the systems that were designed and implemented, you’d probably end up with about 1342 pages of tightly written paragraphs, huge new subsidies, new panels, advisory boards, and commissions; etc. There may be some relatively minor changes because there always are between conception and implementation of a big systems project – but the essential components are demonstrably the same.
The Bush Administration announcements of programs came virtually simultaneously with functioning systems. The only way that’s possible is if the development occurred during the ostensible end of the Magaziner project and the Bush announcements. Development takes time and what a “lucky break” it was for the Human Genome Manhattan Project that we had a dual WMD attack – airplanes and anthrax – to accelerate the funding, the necessary legislation and the cooperation from the government and health care community.
The point is, there is virtually a straight line of systems planning, development and implementation that can be mapped out that will correspond to Ira Magaziner’s design and which will ultimately serve the purposes of the Human Genome Project.
The diagram on the following page is a crude depiction of the elements of the Clinton- Magaziner plan compared to the legislation passed during the Bush Administration.
The point is, there is virtually a straight line of systems planning, development and implementation that can be mapped out that will correspond to Ira Magaziner’s design and which will ultimately serve the purposes of the Human Genome Project.
The diagram on the following page is a crude depiction of the elements of the Clinton- Magaziner plan compared to the legislation passed during the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration announcements of programs came virtually simultaneously with functioning systems. The only way that’s possible is if the development occurred during the ostensible end of the Magaziner project and the Bush announcements. Development takes time and what a “lucky break” it was for the Human Genome Manhattan Project that we had a dual WMD attack – airplanes and anthrax – to accelerate the funding, the necessary legislation and the cooperation from the government and health care community.
The point is, there is virtually a straight line of systems planning, development and implementation that can be mapped out that will correspond to Ira Magaziner’s design and which will ultimately serve the purposes of the Human Genome Project.
The diagram on the following page is a crude depiction of the elements of the Clinton- Magaziner plan compared to the legislation passed during the Bush Administration.
The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) was originally established as the National Center for Human Genome Research (NCHGR) in 1989. Its primary mission was to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH) contribution to the Human Genome Project – an international research effort to determine the location of all human genes and to read the entire set of genetic instructions encoded in human DNA….
Scientific leaders of the Human Genome Project also made an important decision in 1996 – to deposit sequence in public databases within 24 hours of its assembly, with no restrictions on its use or redistribution. This defining moment in the HGP made the sequence immediately available to anyone with an Internet connection, ensuring that the sequence would ultimately benefit the public by empowering all the world’s best minds.
In 1998, the funding for the Genome Data Base at Johns-Hopkins was cut and the project was to be shut down but the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto Canada was able to find funding “from various sources” (another article said anonymous sources) to keep the project going. The following are the notes from a 1999 conference in Brisbane, AU:19
The genome database, (GDB) was reported by Dr Jamie Cutticchia. As we all know, GDB had announced its termination but now has guaranteed funding for 4-5 years from various philanthropic sources and is able to continue its work. Operations have now moved from Johns Hopkins University(JHU) in Baltimore, to the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC) in Toronto.
It is proposed that HUGO serves as an advisory board for GDB and that. GDB is now more science focused than informatics focused as it was in the past and aims to working with the community on the acquisition and integration of information rather than developing the database itself.
Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS), formerly HUGO Human Genome Mutation Database Initiative, Brisbane Australia, March 27, 1999, “Report of the 6th HUGO Mutation Database Initiative Meeting,, http://www.hgvs.org/meetings/brisbane.html
GDB is hoped to become more federated, i.e. work with other databases e.g. searching the CF database with GDB tools is now possible. GDB would like to prepare a shell and provide assistance to those curating mutation information and wishes to work with the gene advisory committee to curate the appropriate information and give up those parts that can be better curated elsewhere. GDB also wishes to work with other databases e.g. GeneBank to define better relationships and linkages.
In 1999, the Toronto Sick Children’s Hospital opened the Bioinformatics SupercomputingCenter (BiSC) when the IBM donated an SP supercomputer. The Genome Data Base was then moved to Canada.
Global Genome Database
„Sick Kids has been an undisputed leader in human gene mapping within Canada,“ explains Dr. Cuticchia. „Given the it is only natural that we build on that excellence and expand into this new area. At Sick Kids the hosting of the Canadian site of the GDB is just one of several steps underway to demonstrate our commitment to bioinformatics.
„Due to funding cuts, maintenance of the Johns Hopkins site will be discontinued at the end of January 1999. HSC is considering taking over the management of the entire GDB.
The Hospital for Sick Children is Canada’s premier health research facility and one of the world’s leading centres for genetics research. Through its Centre for Applied Genomics it offers scientists from HSC and across Canada such services as DNA sequencing and synthesis, gene and chromosome mapping, gene identification, and bioinformatics.
Bio-Medicine News, November 5, 1998, Liz Leake, “Sick Kids Improves Access to Global Genome Data Base”, http://news.bio- medicine.org/biology%2Dnews%2D2/Sick%2DKids%2DImproves%2DAccess%2DTo%2DGlobal%2DGenome%2DDatabase%2D13 905%2D2
Just to recap where we are in this project and in general, we have scientists who have mapped the code to our genetic make-up, they don’t respond to government authority, the knowledge of the genome is distributed to scientists throughout the world – friend and foe alike, we have “free trade” agreements that allow anybody from anyplace in the world to just come set up shop to sell to the public – or to import products like contaminated Heparin from China and – that’s the least of our worries on imports.
We have a population that is living in a bubble of delusion because our primary information outlets are corporate controlled and for the most part, the only people making money in this country today – are those who are engaged either directly or indirectly in aiding and abetting “The Project”.
And the icing on the cake is that we have the design for a new health care system that is being implemented that will enable genetics researchers to study and use the entire population of the United States as lab rats once the components of the system are fully implemented.
The evidence of that is not only the research and the systems implemented so far, but also in the legislation that addresses ethical issues. All references are from the Genome Project Timeline:21
Health Care Portability and Accountability Act prohibits use of genetic information in certain health-insurance eligibility decisions, requires DHHS to enforce health-information privacy provisions.
Noting the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 18 December 1979, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity of 5 June 1992, the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1993, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers of 20 November 1974, the UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice of 27 November 1978, the UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations of 12 November 1997, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of 2 November 2001, the ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries of 27 June 1989, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture which was adopted by the FAO Conference on 3 November 2001 and entered into force on 29 June 2004, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) annexed to the Marrakech Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, which entered into force on 1 January 1995, the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health of 14 November 2001 and other relevant international instruments adopted by the United Nations and the specialized agencies of the United Nations system, in particular the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO),
Considering the government’s performance to date on the issue of ethics, one has to consider any ethics legislation and spokesperson rhetoric as merely smoke and mirrors. Ethics are judged by actions – not verbalizations and in this regard, the government fails. Private sector genetics research has been unleashed on the American public with no oversight and with the government computer systems designed to facilitate that research on an unsuspecting population.
We’re in a fix.
Population Pools
The system of mandatory health insurance either through a private insurer or public system ensures that the entire population will be included. To be blunt, it also serves the purpose of segregating people by income and status in life. People who have private insurance count – people in public programs of insurance don’t. Private insurance is not entirely a shield, but it will affect the risk management models for selection of subjects for research. People who have Medicare, Medicaid or who receive subsidized (free to minimal charges) care are most at risk for being test subjects as was demonstrated recently by the Texas Medicaid Algorithm Project (TMAP).
TMAP was a “project partnership” between the state of Texas and the drug companies. It was recently in the news when a lawsuit against Eli Lilly & Company was settled for $1.42 billion.22
The case was handled as Medicaid billing fraud completely ignoring what the drug companies were actually doing. The media focus on “greed” as opposed to a more sinister motive is apparent from this video of a Fox News Story on the settlement. However, with a deeper understanding of the TMAP project itself, the conclusion on the Eli Lilly settlement would have to be that Eli Lilly took the fall on this one so that the real project could continue.
There were about 5 drug companies involved in TMAP all doing the same thing as Eli Lilly and with complete cooperation of the state of Texas. Since this is the second major case in which states have sued and benefited from the lawsuit, one has to wonder if perhaps the lawsuit isn’t simply becoming a wink and a nod way of transferring funds to the states for corporate projects. In essence a “dead peasant” payout to the state for using their official capacity to enable the research. Of course the dead and injured peasants get nothing.
In the case of TMAP, the particular drug and drug company is not the issue. The Medicaid billing is not the issue. The issue is the development of the ‘Algorithm System’. It is a critical component in the larger, long term plan for population-wide genetics research and eugenics. To understand how it will work, one must look at the nature and purpose of the TMAP system itself.
The Algorithm System is a knowledge base – decision support system. The purpose of it is to aid health care providers in the decision-making process for prescribing drugs by using all factors of the medical record to select and suggest a particular medication for the patient. Decision support systems are also called ‘Expert Systems’. The concept of an Expert System is that it has the intelligence necessary – through it’s knowledge base – to replace real experts with clerical staff – or in the case of health care, with lesser qualified health care providers.
Expert systems use decision tree logic – which is a simple, YES-NO test. This is a simplified decision tree to show the essence of an expert system.
This diagram is an actual decision tree for a gastric condition using test results as a factor in the decision tree model. You can begin to get the idea of the complexity involved in prescribing decisions made by computer just by looking at This diagram is an actual decision tree for a gastric condition using test results as a factor in the decision tree model. You can begin to get the idea of the complexity involved in prescribing decisions made by computer just by looking at it:
This diagram should make clear the fact that while the Algorithm Project in Texas involved psychotropic drugs, the pharmaceutical companies as a consortium are building a knowledge base for prescribing assistance for all drugs for all conditions. Ultimately, the idea will be to use a person’s body chemistry and genetic factors to prospectively prescribe medications to prevent the development of conditions that we now treat retrospectively – and in many cases after the damage is done.
Nobel goal – but it’s in how they get there that’s the problem.
The Algorithm Project in Texas wasn’t the only state where “The System” was being used. Pennsylvania was one of the other states where it was implemented and the investigation of it cost Pennsylvania OIG Inspector Allen Jones his career. The following are excerpts from Inspector Jones’ testimony24 followed by comments on the significance:
Public Search Governmental Reports website, TMAP, Testimony of Allen Jones, Investigator in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Special Investigations, January 20, 2004 (Rev.) http://www.psychsearch.net/tmap.pdf
Additional TMAP and Jones documentation can be found on Atypical Antipsychotics website
http://tmap.wordpress.com
Page 1TMAP is a Trojan horse embedded with the pharmaceutical industry’s newest and most expensive mental health drugs. Through TMAP, the drug industry methodically compromised the decision making of elected and appointed public officials to gain access to captive population of mentally ill individuals in prisons and state mental health hospitals.
TMAP applied to drugs prescribed to mental patients in the “public health care system” - using the population of people who don’t count. The officials of the state of Texas - and in particular, the medically trained officials had to be aware of the nature of the project but they went ahead anyway.Page 6
“Expert Consensus Guidelines”
This consortium sought to “legitimize” the medications recommended in the model program’s “drug menus”. The group elected to utilize “Expert Consensus Guidelines”, rather than clinical studies or drug trials to form these recommendations.
Essentially, TMAP opted to “establish” new drugs as the best drugs for various illnesses by surveying the opinions of doctors and psychiatrists of TMAP’s own choosing. No hard science, no patients, no study review, and no clinical trials – just the “Expert Opinions” of persons TMAP elected to survey.
The “Expert Consensus” process became TMAP’s standard mechanism for creating the appearance of superiority for certain drugs and it was employed repeatedly from 1996 to 2003.
Saving the cost and time of performing clinical trials in the traditional way is secondary to the real purpose of “Consensus of Experts” system. The “Consensus Process” establishes an after the fact review of the decisions made by the TMAP system – so what they were actually doing was testing the computer system – the decisions made by the computer system using the knowledge base they were building. That’s the reason why they need to have lesser qualifed health care providers doing the face-to-face patient contact and using the computer system for prescribing. A real physician would make his own decisions on medications. The lesser qualified people will do what the computer system tells them to do because they don’t have the personal knowledge to question the computer.
Page 10
With the doors of the Texas prisons and mental hospitals open to TMAP, TMAP personnel were free to “mine” patient records in a process called “Retrospective Analysis.” Essentially they could research files of those patients who had previously been treated with the newer medications and report on those cases that offered favorable results. Additionally, TMAP personnel were responsible for monitoring the usage of the drugs, gathering raw data, analyzing data and formulating reports. (In Pennsylvania this included experimentation with dosage levels and new symptoms.)
With the nationalized medical records system, the drug company personnel1 and “Expert Teams” will be able to select their target populations through “Prospective Analysis”. They will have the full health record and they will be able to set up queries to run through the entire networked database looking for people who meet the criteria for their study (experimentation).
Page 12
…Guardian that the drug’s potential to cause suicidal thinking needs to be investigated.
Last month the Journal of the American Medical Association published results from two trials of children treated with Pfizer’s antidepressant drug Lustral, known in the US as Zoloft.
Seventeen children who were given the drug were pulled out of the trial because of side effects, compared with five who were given a placebo. Only 10% more children improved on the drug than improved on a placebo.
The researchers nonetheless concluded „the results of this pooled analysis demonstrate that sertraline (Lustral) is an effective and well-tolerated short-term treatment for children and adolescents with major depressive disorder“.
In a project like TMAP where the true objective is different than the stated objective, you can’t know what they were actually testing. Since they were developing a decision support system – a computer system – making prescribing decisions, you don’t know the criteria was for a successful test. The fact that children were pulled out of the trial might be the success they were looking for because the TMAP system decided to pull them out based on the side effects or the prediction of side effects based on the patients chemistry that did manifest proving the system correct.
Page 20
The centerpiece of this model is a set of algorithms that, together with text guidelines, guide a clinician in prescribing medications to schizophrenic patients and in changing or adjusting medications. Algorithms are basically flow charts, or graphs, that illustrate step- by-step movements in a process….
The centerpiece of the algorithms is a formulary of approved and required medications. A formulary is like a menu in a restaurant, but it lists medications instead of food. It is a list of what medications a doctor may choose from. If a drug is not on the menu, it cannot be used.
The menu also stipulates the order in which classifications of drugs can be used. To carry the restaurant analogy further, the “appetizer menu” must be used first. In the drug formularies, “the appetizer menu” is that list of drugs that must be used first, second and often third, before moving on.
The above paragraph is the key that reveals what the TMAP project was really about. The algorithm is for formulaic medicine – medical decisions made by computers using a knowledge base.
The TMAP project was using the Texas captive and vulnerable populations as the test subjects for development of the knowledge base which is demonstrative of the ethical compass of the genetics researchers and state officials.
The decision support system is being developed to assist lesser qualified people – Physician’s Assistants and Nurse Practitioners to practice medicine as if they were doctors.
This is a necessary feature of the “new” health care system as it pertainsto genetic research and especially once they begin the real gene modification research on a large scale. Real doctors have too much knowledge and stature and some would blow the whistle on the failures. The voices PA’s and NA’s won’t be heard in the circles that matter.
In 2005 and 2006, the Science, Technology and Innovation subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a couple of hearings25 on the health care system and “reforms”. These hearings not only have useful information concerning the plans for health care, they also give an idea of attitudes and thinking of the people involved in the “transformation”.
One of the witnesses in the 2005 hearing, John Glaser, Vice President and CIO of Partners HealthCare in Boston is quite open about the new paradigm for health care in select circles. And although this article doesn’t mention the TMAP decision support system and the PA- NP’s, it does describe the planned new paradigm – the electronic health records and the integration of genetic research into the health care system.
“The integration of genetics and electronic health records” – therein lies the reason for removing real physicians from front line contact with the target populations. A real physician would recognize the experimental nature of the computer suggested treatments. The lesser trained Physicians Assistants and Nurse Practitioners would not. However, with a little psychological ego pumping, they can be made to think that in the techno-tronic era – with computer-aided decision support, they can.
There are several components to health care reform that are designed to facilitate covert research.
First, the “transformation” of the health care system is to be a “wellness system”28
– giving doctors performance incentives for healthy patients. Obviously this will cause doctors to offload their chronically ill patients to “chronic disease management centers”.
This is a means to segregate the target populations and to direct them to research centers – with the term research applied both to medical research and to computer science research for the purpose of building the knowledge base for drugs and drug aprovels for the decision tables themselves.
The concept of chemistry-based medicine is being marketed as “personalized medicine”. That makes it sound very attractive.
What it actually is
is modification of your DNA
your genes, your personal
or your family’s basic body chemistry.29
The fact of their dishonesty in marketing the nature of the “New Medicine” is reason enough to have the utmost concern regarding all of the changes to the health care system that are being implemented.
The plans also call for rural health clinics for the poor. These clinics offer free or almost free health care.
The patients in these clinics will no doubt be used in various ways – for example as control populations, populations used for the training of health care providers, and “for other purposes” as yet unspecified.
The transformation of the U.S. health care system for systemic genetic research depends upon easing out well trained physicians except those who are willing to be genetics researchers for the cause of science. To accomplish that, doctors are being given the bum’s rush on technology
“Techno-Dazzle” which they will soon find out is costing them more than it’s worth to them; facilitation and peer pressure for ‘group think’
Best Practices in preparation for the “Expert Consensus” team approach to medicine which is conditioning for hands off medicin
review of an electronic medical record in place of face-to-face patient care.
The new paradigm of payment for “wellness” means giving doctors money for nothing but wearing the white coat and performing triage – healthy ones here – sick ones there.
Effectively, the ‘New Medicine’ is the Golden Parachute buy out for physicians to enable the degradation of the health care system to the point where the real genetic experimentation can begin.
As each aspect of the new health care system is examined, the strategies for the genomics research becomes apparent if one is aware of the dual use of technologies and the larger Blueprint for health care “transformation”. Telemedicine is one such technology. It was promoted by former Surgeon General Richard Carmona who was an EMT turned physician (allegedly).
Telemedicine will be the tool that is used for communication between the physician- researcher and the hands-on provider Nurse Practitioner or Physician’s Assistant. In some settings, it could be the best thing that every happened to health care – in third world countries that don’t have a health care infrastructure for example. In other settings like the United States, the opposite is true – it’s the worst thing that could happen to health care.
In the course of gathering information for this paper, an NIH website containing videos on various subjects was found. On March 13, 2001, there was a presentation titled, “Telemedicine and Telecommunications: Options for the New Century”.30 It’s worth the time to watch it because the presentors give the history and the arguments for it and the various issues around the use of it – and other technologies such a electronic medical records and the use thereof.
Surgeon General Witnesses EMS Telemedicine Preview at “Eagles” Meeting
On February 18, 2005, participants at the prestigious “Gathering of Eagles” Conference (www.gatheringofeagles.us )in Dallas, Texas previewed an advanced EMS Telemedicine system in which real-time video images, digital voice communications and physiologic data were sent from a specially equipped Garland Fire Department ambulance…
Dr. Richard Carmona, the Surgeon General of the United States, observes the Rosetta VC ‘live’ video/data transmission from Garland Texas Fire Department, 20 miles away.
Dr. Fowler (www.biotel.ws) presented a series of slides highlighting several key applications for the technology as well as the need for open architecture in EMS communications and data management systems.
The subject of replacing face-to-face physician care with lesser qualified providers is a sensitive subject that at this point is not really being discussed opening – but rather it is simply being implemented. In this NIH “dialogue”,32 what they are doing is a subtle form of propaganda to regularize the topic of remote medicine. Near the end of it, is this snippet:
WHY NOT TELEMEDICINE
A physician at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles accurately diagnosed an ill child in Guam via live video at a telemedicine conference early. But only after Guam’s lieutenant governor, a medical doctor, intervened to keep Guam’s Board of Medical Licensure from enforcing a law that prevents off-shore doctors not licensed in Guam from diagnosing patients. In a world of increasingly specialized care it’s ridiculous to force Guam residents to fly to Los Angeles if the specialty expertise can come to them. This is but one of thousands of barriers constructed by the medical professions in every state to protect themselves from competition and market entry. Adding billions to the costs of medical care diagnosis and delivery every year.
Who would argue?
However, if the locations were reversed and the hospital was in Guam and the patient in Los Angeles, it would be a whole different story – and that’s the story you won’t see in print – at least until the Health IT system is fully implemented. If that sounds
Published Aug. 30, 2019 | Updated Sept. 4, 2019
Though questions remain around issues of interoperability, patient awareness, physician readiness, reimbursement and broadband availability, it’s hard to find anyone in healthcare who contests virtual medicine’s merit or potential. Whether it’s called virtual medicine, telemedicine, virtual visits, telehealth or connected care, the paradigm-shifting use of technology to deliver healthcare or health education from a distance is gaining traction on a grand scale.
A constellation of forces is fueling telemedicine’s growth, ranging from the rising prevalence of chronic diseases and the aging of the population, to the shortage of healthcare professionals and the need for more affordable options to contain costs. Add in the proliferation of mobile technology, the demands of highly connected consumers and improvements in the telecommunication infrastructure, and it’s easy to see why telemedicine has finally taken off.
For instance, more than 75 percent of hospitals have implemented some form of computerized telehealth system, according to the American Hospital Association.
Use of Telehealth in Hospitals Has Grown Rapidly
Percent of hospitals fully or partially implementing computerized telehealth system, 2010-2017
One of telehealth’s main promises is increased patient engagement. “Satisfaction rates are very high,” says Jennifer Bordenick, CEO of eHealth Initiative, Washington, D.C., a collaborative of stakeholders focused on digital technology in healthcare. “Patients who’ve used telehealth become repeat users—frequent fliers, if you will—once they recognize that they don’t have to take off work and can accomplish the same thing through their tablets or phones.”
The experiences of some organizations indicate telemedicine can be a tool that wins competitive advantage when they provide a valued service that others lack. For example, one institution gained market share by offering teleneurology for multiple sclerosis patients.
“Patients who’ve used telehealth become repeat users—frequent fliers, if you will—once they recognize that they don’t have to take off work and can accomplish the same thing through their tablets or phones.”- Jennifer Bordenick, eHealth Initiative
The technology also helps providers work toward their goals around population health management and reducing disparities by increasing access to care. “In many rural communities, there is no Uber. The closest doctor is three hours away, and it’s not necessarily the doctor the patient needs. Telehealth answers that call,” Bordenick says.
There will also be cost implications. In April 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that beginning in 2020, it will allow Medicare Advantage to provide telehealth services as part of basic benefits—a policy change that will improve payments and expand options for beneficiaries.
The Federal Communications Commission, which recently announced $100 million in funding for a telemedicine pilot program for low-income Americans, estimates that remote patient monitoring and virtual visits could save healthcare $305 billion yearly.
Most organizations are at the early stages of implementing some aspect of virtual medicine or telehealth. The early adopters are largely academic medical centers. Following, we profile the journeys of three organizations that have committed to telemedicine on a variety of fronts. For those in the planning stages of their virtual health strategy, please visit the Web Extras section at HealthcareExecutive.org for advice from the experts.
“The current standard of care is intermittent, time-consuming and very expensive,” says Pelt. “You operate on somebody, you send them home, and you hope for the best, but you don’t really know unless they call and tell you they’re having a problem.”
Pelt says those phone calls often produce anxiety for the patient and the care team because they’re usually unexpected and are not an ideal way of communicating. “Virtual health offers a better, less expensive way to interact, educate and engage with patients,” he says. “By being more present in the patient’s day-to-day life, we can intervene sooner and, potentially, produce a better outcome. It makes sense in 2019 that technology would have some role in that.”
Especially if you suggest a pandemic in a lockstep scenario to bring back eugenics with new technologies and measures under the umbrella of the emergency state…
…as the Rockefeller Foundation in 2010 with the paper on „Szenarios for the Future of Technology“ predicted …
…or as Bill Gates in 2010 by launching the decade of vaccines…
…and with the step by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2014. Hire a PR firm called Emerging Ag $1.6 million to recruit a covert coalition of academics to manipulate a UN decision-making process over gene drives, according to emails obtained through Freedom of Information requests. Gene drives are a highly controversial new genetic extinction technology. They have been proposed as potentially able to eradicate malarial mosquitoes, agricultural pests, invasive species, as well as having potential military uses.
According to the emails, which were obtained from the University of North Carolina by Edward Hammond of Prickly Research, the Gates funding for Emerging Ag was obtained to co-ordinate a “fight back against gene drive moratorium proponents.”
Funding for Emerging Ag first began after the last full meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Cancún, Mexico in December 2016 which witnessed calls from Southern countries and over 170 international organizations for a UN moratorium on gene drives. Adding to the pressure was a letter titled, “A Call for Conservation with a Conscience: No Place for Gene Drives in Conservation,” signed by 30 environmental leaders, including Jane Goodall. The letter asked for a “halt to all proposals for the use of gene drive technologies, but especially in conservation.”
Despite the public perception that conservation and public health are what motivates gene drive research, it is known that, besides the contribution of the Gates Foundation, most gene drive funding comes from the DARPA, the technology foresight arm of the US Dept of Defense. (DARPA is the science research institute that broght the Nazis scientist to America that leads to ARPA and the first Internet for military and intelligence purposes only. Bevor they get to the real framework and commercialize the Worldweidweib to trap us all into the matrix so that every process of commerce and every money transaction, every decision making by industry, politics and the public become addicted to this system and then you snap the trap
e’voila ready for the final solution?!
…or as the „World at Risk“ report for policy makers and global leader. Warning in 2018 for a potential release of pathological coronavirus to prepare the world for the acceptance of a universal Influenza vaccine under the Emergency use authorization to get to real issues for a top down government and total surveillance in all forms included genomic surveillance…
A WORLD AT RISK – monitoring board from 2018-2019 published in September 2019 – Annual report on global preparedness for health emergencies
Bruggemann, D. (2013) Nanoporous aluminium oxide membranes as cell interfaces. Journal of Nanomaterials, 2013, Article ID460870, 18 pp. Google Scholar
Calatayud, M.P., Riggio, C., Raffa, V., Sanz, B., Torres, T.E., Ibarra, M.R., Hoskins, C., Cuschieri, A., Wang, L., Pinkernelle, J., Keilhofff, G. and Goya, G.F. (2013) Neuronal cells loaded with PEI-coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles for magnetically guided nerve regeneration. Journal of Materials Chemistry B, 1, 3607–3616 ViewCAS Web of Science®
Cherukuri, P.C.S. (2010) Use of nanoparticles for targeted, noninvasive thermal destruction of malignant cells, in Cancer Nanotechnology, Methods and Protocols (eds S.R. Grobmyer and B.M. Moudgil), Humana Press, London, pp. 359–373. Google Scholar
Cho, K.J., Wang, X., Nie, S.M., Chen, Z. and Shin, D.M. (2008) Therapeutic nanoparticles for drug delivery in cancer. Clinical Cancer Research, 14, 1310–1316. ViewCAS PubMed Web of Science®
Riggio, C., Calatayud, M.P., Hoskins, C., Pinkernelle, J., Sanz, B., Torres, T.E., Ibarra, M.R., Wang, L.J., Keilhoff, G., Goya, G.F., Raffa, V. and Cuschieri, A. (2012) Poly-l-lysine-coated magnetic nanoparticles as intracellular actuators for neural guidance. International Journal of Nanomedicine, 7, 3155–3166. CAS PubMed Web of Science®
Pressure Mapping, Force Measurement & Tactile Sensors
This manual describes how to use Tekscan’s ELFTM (Economical Load and Force) and WELF 2 (Wireless Economical Load and Force 2) systems. These systems are ideal for designers, researchers, or anyone who needs to measure forces without disturbing the dynamics of their tests. The FlexiForce® sensors can be used to measure both static and dynamic forces (up to 1000 lbf.), and are thin enough to enable non-intrusive measurement. Each ELF system is comprised of FlexiForce’s Microsoft (MS) Windows-based software, the associated electronics, and FlexiForce sensors. The ELF system hardware includes the sensor handle with USB adapter and the sensors. One of the major advantages of this system is that it is simple to install, and requires very little hardware.
The ELF sensors use a resistive-based technology. The application of a force to the active sensing area of the sensor results in a change in the resistance of the sensing element in inverse proportion to the force applied. After a simple calibration is performed, this force can be displayed on the screen in the measurement units that you choose, such as Pounds or Newtons.
The ELF software is an 8-bit application that is compatible with Microsoft (MS) Windows 7 and 10. The software allows you to view a graphical representation of the force on the sensor in real-time, record this information as a „movie,“ and review and analyze it later. There are a number of options for displaying the real-time force data; it can be displayed as a „strip chart,“ „column graph,“ or „digital readout.“ Recorded „movie frames“ can be saved as ASCII (text) files, which can be imported into a spreadsheet program, or opened in a text editor or word processing program. Real-time data or movie frames can also be copied to the Windows clipboard and pasted into other applications as a .bmp (bitmap) file.
Getting Assistance
Tekscan, Inc. will provide technical assistance for any difficulties you may experience using your ELF system.
Write, call or fax us with any concerns or questions. Our knowledgeable support staff will be happy to help you. Comments and suggestions are always welcome.
From Models to Interdisciplinary Challenges for Medical Applications
Magnetic soft robotics to manipulate the extracellular matrix in vitro
Continuum robots (CR) and magnetic soft robots (MSR) for human medical applications. (1-0) The basic configuration of continuum and magnetic soft robots is to initially understand the principles of motion; (a) the introduction is the basic configuration of the motion deformation of the continuum robot; (b) the introduction is the basic configuration of the motion deformation of the magnetic soft robot. (1-1) The sites of action of continuum and magnetic soft robots for applications in human surgery. (1-2) The innovative applications of these robotic technologies in medicine, heralding new possibilities in treatment and diagnosis (comprising (a) [86], (b) [87], (c) [35], (d) [25], and (e) [88], which are reprinted images), further concentrating on several prominent robotic models in the medical sector. The structural type of these robots is the focus of our discussion. (1-3) The application of continuum and magnetic soft robots in major human organ surgeries (a) in cardiovascular disease surgery; (b) in cerebrovascular disease; (c) in capillary disease; (d) in pulmonary and tracheal disease; (e) in aortic and venous vascular disease.
PATENT: US-9539210-B2 – READ – Vaccine Nanotechnology – Why Was Vaccine Nanotechnology Developed? What Does Section 9 of This Patent Read? “In some embodiments, the small molecule is a toxin. In some embodiments, the toxin is from a chemical weapon, an agent of biowarfare or a hazardous environmental agent.” https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-9539210-B2
PATENT: WO-2015-199784A2 – Systems and Methods for Injectable Devices – Why Did Harvard’s (now convicted) Charles M. Lieber Create a U.S. Patent for Using 5G Radiation to Vibrate Corona Virus Particles from Preset Nanotubule Containers? https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2015199784A2/en
PATENT – US-2010-0216804 A1 – Long Circulating Nanoparticles for Sustained Release of Therapeutic Agents – PATENT: US-9539210-B2 – Vaccine Nanotechnology Why Was Vaccine Nanotechnology Developed? What Does Section 9 of This Patent Read? “In some embodiments, the small molecule is a toxin. In some embodiments, the toxin is from a chemical weapon, an agent of biowarfare or a hazardous environmental agent.” https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-9539210-B2
PATENT: CN112220919A – READ – Nano Coronavirus Recombinant Vaccine Taking Graphene Oxide as Carrier – PATENT: US-9539210-B2 – Vaccine Nanotechnology – Why Was Vaccine Nanotechnology Developed? What Does Section 9 of This Patent Read? “In some embodiments, the small molecule is a toxin. In some embodiments, the toxin is from a chemical weapon, an agent of biowarfare or a hazardous environmental agent.” https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-9539210-B2
PATENT: WO-2015-199784A2 – Systems and Methods for Injectable Devices – Why Did Harvard’s (now convicted) Charles M. Lieber Create a U.S. Patent for Using 5G Radiation to Vibrate Corona Virus Particles from Preset Nanotubule Containers? READ – https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2015199784A2/en
Brief of graphene-based sensor platform for health monitoring. A major distinction can be made between non-invasive and invasive applications, including wearable sensors for monitoring biophysical, biochemical, environment signals, and implantable devices for nervous, cardiovascular, digestive, locomotor system.
The lack of preparedness for detecting and responding to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pathogen (i.e., COVID-19) has caused enormous harm to public health and the economy. Testing strategies deployed on a population scale at day zero, i.e., the time of the first reported case, would be of significant value. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has such capabilities; however, it has limited detection sensitivity for low-copy-number pathogens. Here, we leverage the CRISPR-Cas9 system to effectively remove abundant sequences not contributing to pathogen detection and show that NGS detection sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 approaches that of RT-qPCR. The resulting sequence data can also be used for variant strain typing, co-infection detection, and individual human host response assessment, all in a single molecular and analysis workflow. This NGS work flow is pathogen agnostic and, therefore, has the potential to transform how large-scale pandemic response and focused clinical infectious disease testing are pursued in the future.
Important theoretical concepts tend to resist satisfactory definition (cf. Stigler 1957). Such concepts are in the service of the expansive ambitions of the theories in which they occur, and must accordingly respond flexibly to the changing requirements for maintaining order in a changing intellectual empire. The term ‘evolution’ – obviously important in biology, but also in the physical and social sciences – provides a good illustration of this principle. A prominent biologist and author of a highly expansive treatise on biological evolution had the following to offer in his glossary…
Dear, Human Being, Mothers and Fathers, Grandmas and Pas, Brothers, Sisters and Friends,
this is absolutely real and this is the most dangerous step in our history as we can imagine. This is the final solution 2.0 and all around the world its all ready put in place. In this context Hitler and Stalin are peanuts in comparison to that horror.
We don’t have time to lose and must inform all legislation and law-makers, take action in public hearings with local politicians, doctors, hospitals, care homes, local Magazins and newspapers, schools, police officials and friends by military staff, to inform so much people as possible.
Here are a few more enuorating words from and about the sympathetic Klaus and his do-good crew who has just called for a fight against free speech:
And a small outlook on how the global leaders imagines the future…
Are you ready for Braintransparency?
No, but here we go!
So who really benefits from the renunciation of all and can it perhaps be that this sudden change of mind of the super-rich and the politics subject to it, has a completely different goal in mind if they want to encourage us to voluntarily renounce our prosperity, our fundamental rights and our freedom?
And aren’t they those who demand “green utopias” and rely on technology as a “solution” and are willing to drum for war? Who can rap up and down the list of weapons issued, classify the opinion of others as dangerous and want to ban it to protect democracy!? Who want to reduce every area of our lives and completely control and calculate, “of course” everything in the sense of the big picture in order to be able to optimally distribute to everyone?
This is not charity but excessive greed and control rage for whatever it takes that does not even stand back from conditioning children with fear of death and rushing them against their parents, society and prosperity!
Published as: Takagi, T., Imai, H., Miyano, S., Mitaku, S., and Kanehisa, M. (eds.); „Proceedings of Genome Informatics Workshop IV“, Universal Academy Press, Tokyo, 1993.
2001 Liquid Computing Imagine a computer, suspended in a flask of liquid, which assembles itself when the liquid is poured onto a desktop. Sound like science fiction? Hyman professor of chemistry Charles Lieber is making it happen in his laboratory, where researchers have already created tiny logic circuits and memory--the two main components of a computer--in just this manner. And these circuits are tiny, just a few atoms across. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2001/11/liquid-computing-html
The now convicted Harvard professor Charles Lieber created nano-technology that allows human cells to send and receive signals.
Recently engineered viral vectors and multi-subunit packaging RNAs have verified stable enough for long-term existence in the physiological environment and therefore reveal unique potential as artificial immunosurveillance devices. Physiological and pathological events recorded by nanodevices could help develop “biocatalogs” of patients’ infection history, frequency of disease, and much more.
Preventive chemotherapy as a strategy for elimination of neglected tropical parasitic diseases: endgame challenges
Research
Global efforts to address neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) were stimulated in January 2012 by the London declaration at which 22 partners, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, World Bank, World Health Organization (WHO) and major pharmaceutical companies committed to sustaining and expanding NTD programmes to eliminate or eradicate 11 NTDs by 2020 to achieve the goals outlined in the recently published WHO road map. Here, we present the current context of preventive chemotherapy for some NTDs, and discuss the problems faced by programmes as they consider the ‘endgame’, such as difficulties of access to populations in post-conflict settings, limited human and financial resources, and the need to expand access to clean water and improved sanitation for schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis. In the case of onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis, ivermectin treatment carries a significant risk owing to serious adverse effects in some patients co-infected with the tropical eye worm Loa loa filariasis. We discuss the challenges of managing complex partnerships, and maintain advocacy messages for the continued support for elimination of these preventable diseases.
The term preventive chemotherapy (PC) was introduced by the World Health Organization (WHO) [1], to cover the approach of treating populations at risk of human helminth diseases, to prevent transmission or morbidity of those diseases, with drugs either alone or in combination. Delivery is usually undertaken by mass drug distribution campaigns organized by national health services but delivered by communities, through school-based treatments or via the health services themselves. The funding for these drug distribution programmes comes from a variety of sources, including endemic countries, bilateral donors, international organization trust funds and non-governmental development organizations (NGDOs). Increasingly, the strategy of PC is part of an expanded integrated programme to address the neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), including meeting targets for elimination or control [2], as delineated by World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions (see the electronic supplementary material, table S1).
The progress of programmes based on PC over the last decade has been spectacular in terms of the numbers of people treated (now with over 700 million individual treatments annually), the increase in donations from the pharmaceutical industry, and the recent bilateral commitments to integrated NTD control/elimination programmes [3–5]. However, this progress creates challenges as programmes seek to achieve targets of elimination or reduced prevalence, incidence and morbidity [6]. This will be the focus of this paper.
Assessing coverage
Since the basis of PC resides in the need to ensure sustained high geographical and therapeutic coverage of the eligible population over a period of years, knowledge of parasite distribution and therapeutic coverage achieved in terms of doses successfully delivered is essential. Geographical coverage is defined as the proportion of the implementation units of infected communities which require treatment for diseases targeted. The calculations of therapeutic coverage in reported figures are based on the total population in any given setting.
It has been shown that CDI over 5–6 years with 65 per cent or more coverage could significantly reduce the prevalence and intensity of other filarial parasites, mainly W. bancrofti [51,52] and some soil-transmitted helminthiases [53,54]. Similarly, repeated doses of albendazole used in soil-transmitted helminthiasis programmes, particularly for school-aged children, could potentially impact on W. bancrofti prevalence. Equally, the scale up of lymphatic filariasis elimination programmes using ivermectin and albendazole across large regions of Africa could help to reinforce the achievements of onchocerciasis control. This would assist in reducing the potential residual human reservoir population of O. volvulus and preventing introduction into areas where the disease has been eliminated. In Haiti, the widespread distribution of albendazole within lymphatic filariasis programmes reduced the prevalence and intensity of soil-transmitted helminths, including Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura and hookworm [53]. However, in contrast to Sri Lanka, Gunawardena et al. [55] showed limited and non-significant changes in prevalence in school-aged children examined although the compliance reported was only 59 per cent. In Zanzibar, Mohammed et al. [54] examined records from 50 health centres over a 6-year period starting prior to the initiation of MDA for lymphatic filariasis, and recorded that the impact of PC was a dramatic decline in both reported cases and required treatments for worm infections and scabies. Harnessing these types of synergies may be important during the endgame where interest in treatment for infections whose rarity makes them seem negligible wanes.
Despite the progress towards the elimination of onchocerciasis in the Americas, some foci still remain, for example recently discovered newly infected communities in the Amazon. These communities are mobile, making the endgame in such inaccessible environments a serious challenge not just in initiating treatment but also in monitoring and post-treatment surveillance. Of the six countries where onchocerciasis was endemic, transmission remains ongoing in foci in the Amazon rainforest on the border between Venezuela and Brazil where there is limited access, making the indigenous Yanomami populations ones who are most at risk [56]. The major challenge is ensuring high coverage ivermectin treatment four times a year to mobile populations who live in most inaccessible areas. Alternatively, given the goal to stop transmission in the Americas by 2015, the newly discovered infected communities could be treated with doxycylcine which might be the most effective way to achieve the endgame.
One contribution of 15 to a Theme Issue ‘Towards the endgame and beyond: complexities and challenges for the elimination of infectious diseases’.
“Why Bill Gates, Jeffrey Epstein and the WORLDBANK are so interested in public health, is it really because they care for us or could it be another motivation for doing this so aggressively?
“Why in the world should we taken drugs for ebola or aids for a fucking flu?”
How private equity conquered America | The Chris Hedges Report
Private equity firms are buying up the US economy and stripping it for parts. From healthcare to education, utilities, and more, massive firms like Blackstone and the Carlyle Group have acquired vast holdings across critical industries essential to the health and well-being of everyday people. Instead of seeking to make these ventures more profitable, private equity firms are more likely to orchestrate to bleed their assets for short-term gains—even if those assets are univerisites, hospitals, or nursing homes. Gretchen Morgenson, author of These Are the Plunderers: How Private Equity Runs—and Wrecks—America, returns to The Chris Hedges Report to discuss how private equity came to hold America hostage. This is the second part of an earlier interview, you can watch the first part here:
https://therealnews.co...
Particles for Humanity – And the Wind Cries Jeffrey Epstein: Biohacking Humans with DNA, Nanotechnology, IoT and 5G
In addition to establishing the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, which studies the mathematics of evolution with a focus on diseases, Epstein was a former board member of…
Jeffrey Epstein is a former board member of the Mind, Brain and Behavior Committee at Harvard and plays an active role at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton. SOURCE
Jeffrey Epstein joined the conversation and demanded to know whether weird quantum effects had played a significant role in the origins of life. That question pushed me way out of…
Harrington says she and Epstein met through Harvard's Mind/Brain/Behavior (MBB) program, which Harrington co-directs and Epstein advises in his capacity as a member of
24. Juli 2023In 2003, Pinker joined Harvard's psychology department, filling a newly created Mind Brain Behavior chair. A generous patron: Epstein lavishly supported the work of
Thanks to funding from prominent science investor, Jeffrey Epstein, the MicroPsi2 Project is closer then ever to mirroring the human mind. Scientists need to focus on the concepts
We Dug Up Jeffrey Epstein’s Old Science Blog. It’s as Weird as You Think.
Scientists who took money from and hobnobbed with Jeffrey Epstein, the philanthropist and registered sex offender, have been issuing apologies and excuses in recent weeks. Joi Ito, the director of MIT’s Media Lab, called his dealings with Epstein an “error in judgment.” The Harvard biologist George Church blamed “nerd tunnel vision.” Meanwhile, more names have been added to the list of scholars who accepted invitations to the late investor’s private island or hung out at his Manhattan mansion.
JANUARY | At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Bill and Melinda call for a "decade of vaccines" and pledge $10 billion over the next 10 years to help research, develop, and deliver vaccines for the world's
Quant Is “Creating the Right Ecosystem for Central Bank Digital Currencies” = rumble.com/v246ebm-cbdc…
What Does Quant Mean? The word “Quant” is short for quantitative analysis (quants use computers to tell them what to buy or sell)
Why Does the WO2020060606 CRYPTOCURRENCY SYSTEM USING BODY ACTIVITY DATA Exist? Why Does This Patent Not Work Without Putting Nano-Technology Inside the Human Body? - READ - patentscope.wipo.int/se…
Why Is the NIH Working On Designing a Synthetic Immune Surveillance Network? - WATCH - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar…
Why Is NIH Developing Synthetic Immunosurveillance Systems: Nanodevices to Monitor Physiological Events - READ - pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov…
AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE SWISS FEDERAL COUNCIL AND THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 19 APRIL 1946*
