“501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, cooperating association or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, to promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. There are also supporting organizations which are often referred to in shorthand form as “Friends of” organizations.[10″
We’re after Religious and Testing for public safety here.
“The Kingdom of God Is Within You-
“Tolstoy presented excerpts from magazines and newspapers relating various personal experiences, and gave keen insight into the history of non-resistance from the very foundation of Christianity, as being professed by a minority of believers. In particular, he confronts those who seek to maintain status quo:
“That this social order with its pauperism, famines, prisons, gallows, armies, and wars is necessary to society; that still greater disaster would ensue if this organization were destroyed; all this is said only by those who profit by this organization, while those who suffer from it – and they are ten times as numerous – think and say quite the contrary.”
“Religion in Nazi Germany”
“In 1933, prior to the annexation of Austria into Germany, the Christian population of Germany was 67% Protestant and 33% Catholic, according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum archives. A German census in May 1939, completed more than six years into the Nazi era and incorporating the annexation of mostly Catholic Austria into Germany, indicates that 54% of Germans considered themselves Protestant, (including non-denominational Christians) and 40% considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5% claiming to be neo-pagan “believers in God,” and 1.5 % non-Christians, or “non-believers”.”
“Conducting Human Subjects Research (HSR) at EPA”
“Response to Television Show Depicting Illegal Pesticide Human Study”-EPA
CHEERS-“The Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study (or CHEERS) was a study conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency designed to examine how children may be exposed to pesticides and other chemicals used in U.S. households, such as phthalates, brominated flame retardants, and perfluorinated compounds (PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, and others). The two-year study began in the summer of 2004, but was halted that November by Stephen L. Johnson (who was then Assistant Administrator of the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances and later became Administrator). On April 8, 2005, Johnson cancelled the study while he was awaiting Senate confirmation as EPA Administrator after the program was criticized. Johnson himself was also heavily criticized for his record of supporting the use of human test subjects in pesticide experiments when he was EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances.”
“Seeking Additional Patient Bases
In addition to plumbing their own files for potential experimental subjects, some researchers pay “finder’s fees” to other doctors who do not even conduct the research: “Occasionally, investigators offer fees to encourage referrals from other physicians or nurses,” such as an offer of $75 to physicians or nurses for each subject referred, according to the Report. The use of patients reached through patient advocacy groups, also described in the Report, similarly has the taint of using a relationship of trust to recruit patients who might otherwise not be interested in participation in such experiments.”
““Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues”(2004)” -NAP
“Studies in which people are intentionally exposed to toxicants, which are conducted generally to make the case for setting a less stringent exposure standard, are intuitively troubling and even repugnant to many people. Such studies seem to be ethically wrong—“It’s wrong to poison people”—and further discussion does not even seem necessary. The committee took note of these responses but sought to examine closely how toxicant studies are similar to, and different from, other human studies, so that the wide experience could contribute to its deliberation about which kinds of studies are ethically defensible in light of the available evidence and society’s basic moral values. Understanding that virtually all chemicals can be poisonous to humans at some dose, the committee compared studies that involve the intentional exposure of humans to toxicants with studies that involve deliberate exposure to other kinds of chemicals. This analysis noted some important similarities, along with several differences, between intentional human dosing studies and Phase 1 pharmaceutical testing, especially because neither offers a reasonable prospect of direct benefit to the research participant. In fact, the Phase 1 study is more likely to provoke adverse effects. Both types of study should be evaluated according to prevailing ethical standards, in the Common Rule and elsewhere, for assessing human research protocols. Neither kind of study can be ethically justified unless it passes rigorous scrutiny on both scientific and ethical grounds.5″
The motives of the different sponsors also may be similar: both a pharmaceutical company and a pesticide company, to take these two examples, may be motivated primarily by a desire for increased revenues. One seeks to get a drug approved for sale, and the other seeks a higher tolerance level to increase the sale of pesticides. These motives may be primary or secondary and may be accompanied by various additional motives. In any case, neither motive necessarily disqualifies the research on ethical grounds. However, the presence and perhaps primacy of these motives underscores the need for stringent standards and procedures to protect the rights and welfare of research participants.”
The predictive outcome of such testing really is’nt that hard to imagine.
A Psychiatric Nurse’s Blog:
“Looking Through the Windows of Madness”
“Unethical human experimentation in the United States:
Legal, academic and professional policy”
“As of 2007, not a single U.S. government researcher had been prosecuted for human experimentation, and many of the victims of U.S. government experiments have not received compensation, or in many cases, acknowledgment of what was done to them.[“
“Constitutions become the ultimate tyranny,” Paul said. “They’re organized power on such a scale as to be overwhelming. The constitution is social power mobilized and it has no conscience. It can crush the highest and the lowest, removing all dignity and individuality. It has an unstable balance point and no limitations.”
― Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah
*A Constitution can be circumvented then the population acts as if there are Constitutional Protections. Much of what is going on won’t end up in court with a grand jury to see the medical evidence.