Effects of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) on Troops Marching."

[Guest Speed Racer]

Regardless of whether or not a drug is safe has nothing to do with whether or not test participants were able to provide informed consent. I said researchers are able to predict about 99% of the outcomes, not that a drug or treatment is 99% safe.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I'm relaying this to make the point that even after it's on the market there is a high degree of unpredictability, and implying that the results of a clinical drug trial are a foregone conclusion is ludicrous.

 

Which is exactly why individuals who want to avoid such risks can opt out of participating in trials, and opt out of pharmaceuticals altogether. Giving people drugs without their consent is absolutely ludicrous; implying that clinical trials are often a reflection of the research done up to the clinical trial itself is not.

[Ghost of Electricity]

Regardless of whether or not a drug is safe has nothing to do with whether or not test participants were able to provide informed consent. I said researchers are able to predict about 99% of the outcomes, not that a drug or treatment is 99% safe.

On the issue of informed consent, Do you honestly know the results of every clinical test concerning every chemical additive in every food or beverage that passes your lips? I don't. But you agree to eat them.

 

You and I are the victims of something which is worse than clinical testing, because it has been approved and we take it every day, and the potential results of which are far worse than a few perhaps pleasurable hours laughing in the face of your commanding officer.

[Ghost of Electricity]

Which is exactly why individuals who want to avoid such risks can opt out of participating in trials, and opt out of pharmaceuticals altogether. Giving people drugs without their consent is absolutely ludicrous; implying that clinical trials are often a reflection of the research done up to the clinical trial itself is not.

You still have not adequately demonstrated that these soldiers have not consented. The only evidence is the voice-over. While I would not consider it a reliable source, it is thus far the only source.

[Guest Speed Racer]

But you agree to eat them.

 

I agree to eat them. That's the rub. I could be informed if I want to be, but I opt out. No one is adding things to my food that I don't have the ability to check on, regardless of whether or not I do. No one is forcing me to eat these foods or take these supplements; likewise, no one is keeping me from researching, as you linked to, information regarding additives.

 

These individuals were not given any type of consent materials that would meet the federal standard of informed consent.

 

You still have not adequately demonstrated that these soldiers have not consented. The only evidence is the voice-over. While I would not consider it a reliable source, it is thus far the only source.

 

I think it's pretty well-understood that these videos come from the era where the U.S. military conducted dozens of trials on soldiers without their knowledge or consent. If these kids on tape happen to have given some kind of informed consent I don't know about (which I highly doubt), then you can simply take my words and apply them to the numerous other illegal studies conducted by the government before and after.

[Ghost of Electricity]

I agree to eat them.

Just as those recruits agreed to eat those little bart simpsons.

 

These individuals were not given any type of consent materials that would meet the federal standard of informed consent.

Really? state your sources please.

 

 

I think it's pretty well-understood that these videos come from the era where the U.S. military conducted dozens of trials on soldiers without their knowledge or consent.

Guilt by association? Yikes!

 

If these kids on tape happen to have given some kind of informed consent I don't know about (which I highly doubt), then you can simply take my words and apply them to the numerous other illegal studies conducted by the government before and after.

Like I said before

I'm no apologist for the nasty shit the military has done/is doing

[Guest Speed Racer]

I'll admit I skimmed your latest response; your premise that this, and other military studies can be compared to modern clinical trials is fucking hi-larious, and I'll leave it at that.

[Ghost of Electricity]

For a minute I'll entertain your assumptions as fact.

 

On the one hand we have a handful of people being unknowingly given a drug which a)has no known negative mid- or long-term side effects, and b)documentary evidence shows they were enjoying.

 

On the other we have entire populations of people who, over the course of decades, have been exposed to government-approved known carcinogens.

 

 

I guess you're right, there is no comparison.

 

 

By cloaking the one thing in the language of "military testing" and the other in language of "clinical trials" it is easy to vilify one and justify the other. But then you're missing the whole story, and the point.

 

The powers that be are have become far more savvy about their kniving. It is not difficult to imagine that if the military developed something akin to LSD today, they would take it to a pharmaceutical company who would then run tests on "volunteers" ranging from violent criminals to mentally ill patients. If these tests procured the appropriate results, the military would then use the drug for the purpose it had originally intended.

 

Your naive, misplaced, and disproportionate moral outrage is the thing that I find hi-fucking-larious. I'll leave it at that.

[Ghost of Electricity]

Avandia is a drug produced by GalaxoSmithKline. It was approved in 1999 to treat diabetes. In 2007 they looked at some statistics and realized that close to 50% of people taking it suffered from heart attacks. There is (according to some things I've read) about 6 Billion dollars in pending lawsuits. This drug is still on the market.

 

Not trying to pick an old fight here, but when I heard about this I remembered this thread.