Charles Davenport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Davenport
“Charles Benedict Davenport (June 1, 1866–February 18, 1944) was a prominent American eugenicist and biologist. He was one of the leaders of the American eugenics movement, which was directly involved in the sterilization of around 60,000 “unfit” Americans and strongly influenced the Holocaust in Europe.[1]”

Eugenics Creed:
“# I believe in striving to raise the human race to the highest plane of social organization, of cooperative work and of effective endeavor.”
# “I believe that I am the trustee of the germ plasm that I carry; that this has been passed on to me through thousands of generations before me; and that I betray the trust if (that germ plasm being good) I so act as to jeopardize it, with its excellent possibilities, or, from motives of personal convenience, to unduly limit offspring.”
# “I believe that, having made our choice in marriage carefully, we, the married pair, should seek to have 4 to 6 children in order that our carefully selected germ plasm shall be reproduced in adequate degree and that this preferred stock shall not be swamped by that less carefully selected.”
# “I believe in such a selection of immigrants as shall not tend to adulterate our national germ plasm with socially unfit traits.”
# “I believe in repressing my instincts when to follow them would injure the next generation.”

As refrenced by the Director of the National Institute of Health, from the transcipts by the Presidential Commission for Bioethics.

How does this relate to clinical trials?

DR. GUTMANN:

“Yes. So I think Rob you mentioned that there is a spectrum from optimal sites to, and I think these were your words, outright inappropriate sites for clinical research, clinical trials. Let’s focus on clinical trials.

If we did a random audit of international trials, what would your sense be, given what you know, and I ask this to both you and Larry, of how, what proportion of optimal sites versus downright inappropriate sites — and when I say sites, I think when you said you meant the whole — whether you could conduct effective ethical research under the circumstances in which it has been, it is being conducted?

So what would you say — And let me just say why I ask the question. I think when, this is evidence-based what I think, that when there is a downright inappropriate clinical trial conducted for whatever reasons, it has an effect that goes beyond the way the horrific way, let’s say the subjects were treated. It pollutes the atmosphere for medical research and in a way that goes even beyond the horrors of the case.

So I am just interested in whether you think downright inappropriate sites are how close to zero are they? They clearly aren’t zero.”

DR. CALIFF:

“I mean, there are dishonest people everywhere. And I mean what I will say is we do global clinical trials at up to a thousand sites per trial. Almost every one we have to disqualify at least one site for very bad behavior, I will just call it.

And so I would say on a spectrum, that kind of egregious thing is less than one percent. But there is a clear gradation where the most common thing is where the payments for the site for the research far exceed the cultural norm for the conduct of that professional activity of treating a patient with a disease. That is where you begin to get into the trouble, which is not lying but it may be participating in a study which is not optimal for the cultural norms of that neighborhood or environment. And that is probably where the focus ought to be.”
Medical Research – The Global Landscape
Transcript from March 1, 2011, in Washington, D.C.
http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/human-subjects-protection/030111/medical-research-the-global-landscape.html

Repeated: Dr Gutmann
“I think when, this is evidence-based what I think, that when there is a downright inappropriate clinical trial conducted for whatever reasons, it has an effect that goes beyond the way the horrific way, let’s say the subjects were treated. It pollutes the atmosphere for medical research and in a way that goes even beyond the horrors of the case.”

If I used the 1/1000 bad test sites to the number of test subjects in the US guesstimate 15-20 million than we have 15 to 20 thousand test subjects exposed to “horrific treatment”

So the next question would be what is the average number of people on one test site? So the 15 to 20 thousand number might be conservative.

Remember these would be the numbers exposed per year, I suspect on some of the intergenerational studies a test site would be mobile. These studies could go on for years.
We have no idea of the number of “extreme adverse events” caused by the nature of the research.

*these are international clinical trial statistics imposed on the number of US test subjects, what I was after was some sort of ballpark guestimate*

We do however, have a memorial for a failed Civil Society for the subjects (not people) of “extreme adverse events”:
http://www.ushmm.org/

The mechanics for a failed Civil Society:

The Malicious Practices Act 1933

“The Malicious Practices Act was a desperate measure introduced to rid the German state of its ‘oppressors’ and ‘enemies’. In particular, the Nazi state imposed new legislation that made it illegal to speak wrongly of, or criticise the regime and its leaders. The two key guidelines were that of Protective Custody and Preventative Custody. Preventative Custody was aimed at the undesirables within society, for example paupers, homosexuals and Jews. Those who were unfortunate enough to fall into this category could be arrested even if an offence had not been committed. Protective custody, however, was aimed at the regimes political opponents, in particular those from the left, such as the communists and socialists. The state made it apparent that those who failed to comply with Nazi ideology and politics could be arrested for the ‘protection of the state’. In particular this was in an attempt to eliminate other political parties from German politics and eradicate their presence permanently. A circular of the Reich and Prussian Minister of Interior, produced on 14 December 1937 stated:

(a) “those to be considered A-Social are persons who demonstrate through behaviour towards the community, when may not in itself be criminal, that they will not adopt themselves to the community The following are examples of A-Social, Persons who through minor, but repeated, infractions of the law demonstrate that they will not adapt socialist state, e.g. beggars, tramps, whores, alcoholics with contagious diseases, particularly transmitted diseases, who evade the measures taken by the public health authorities”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Malicious_Practices_Act_1933#Overview

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s