It was, the doctor at the Long Beach Veteran's Administration Hospital said,
an incidental finding. A little gray smudge on the X-ray, a blob next to the
pituitary gland.
Six months later, University of California at Los Angeles surgeons worked
six hours to sever a tumor from the brain of a muscular, 25-year-old
ex-Special Forces Ranger and Gulf War veteran. The costly surgery was
performed at UCLA, the patient said, because VA doctors denied that the
"incidental finding" caused his excruciating, unremitting headaches.
He blamed Army-administered drugs for the tumor. And his girlfriend said
there were other "side effects" of his service in the Gulf, including
increased agitation and sperm that "burned."
"We had a third day of shots before we went over (to the Gulf)," said the
ex-Ranger, who requested anonymity because his Army Reserve commitment has yet
to expire. "Guys in other units only had two, but most Rangers had three. They
wouldn't tell us what they were for."
Are this young man and tens of thousands of other veterans suffering from
Gulf War sickness victims of coincidences beyond the Pentagon's control? Or
are they casualties of a government that trampled both the Nuremberg Code and
its own policies against forced medical experimentation?
Ruling in the 1947 trial of 23 Nazi doctors and medical administrators
charged with crimes against humanity during World War II, judges of the
American Tribunal in Nuremberg set forth 10 conditions for
permissible
medical experiments.
In a February 1953
directive, Defense Secretary Charles Wilson established what is still the
"law of the land" governing such experimentation. Consistent with the
Nuremberg Code, the directive's cornerstone is voluntary consent.
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,"
Wilson wrote, ordering that such consent be given in writing before at least
one witness. Wilson also banned use of "force, fraud, deceit, duress,
over-reaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion" in obtaining
consent.
Did the Pentagon obey this directive during the Gulf War?
The administration of experimental drugs without consent was, Orient said,
"the first instance in which an official government agency officially
sanctioned the direct violation of the Nuremberg Code."
In a 1994
report called Human Experimentation and Other Intentional Exposures
Conducted by the Department of Defense, the Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs seemed to agree.
"The results of our investigation showed a reckless disregard that shocked
me," said Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV. "The Pentagon ... threw
caution to the winds, ignoring all warnings of potential harm, and gave these
(investigational) drugs to hundreds of thousands of soldiers with virtually no
warnings and no safeguards.
"If that wasn't bad enough, they administered these drugs and vaccines in
such a way that there is a very good chance they wouldn't have even worked for
the intended purpose."
The committee also found that consent was not part of the inoculation
program.
"In a survey of 150 Persian Gulf War veterans ... 15 of 17 receiving
botulinum toxoid were told they could not refuse the vaccination; 54 of 73
receiving pyridostigmine were told they could not refuse," the report stated.
"There is no provision in the Nuremberg Code," the Rockefeller Committee
report concluded, "that allows a country to waive informed consent for
military personnel or veterans who serve as human subjects in experiments
during wartime or in experiments that are conducted because of threat of war."
Responding to the accusations, a Pentagon spokesperson stated: "In all
peacetime applications, we believe strongly in informed consent and its
ethical foundations.... But military combat is different."
Has the Department of Defense actually obtained the "informed consent" of
all the GIs inoculated with questionable drugs since the end of Operation
Desert Storm? That's another
story.
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820
"What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?"
-- Sandy Gottstein
"Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?"