Speaker 1: From UFOs two Ghosts and Government cover Ups. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn the stuff they don't want you to now. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the show. Thanks for tuning in. My name
Speaker 1: is Ben Bullen and my name is Matt Frederick and
Speaker 1: that's our super producer, Noel Over on the boards, which
Speaker 1: that was a nice bow, Noel. That makes this stuff
Speaker 1: they don't want you to know the audio show, right,
Speaker 1: that's correct. And today we are talking about human experimentation,
Speaker 1: something that we've covered already in our video series, but
Speaker 1: we thought we'd like to sit down and go over
Speaker 1: it a little bit more in depth. Yeah, because we've
Speaker 1: touched on this and a couple of different shows. We
Speaker 1: have a series just on human experimentation. As you said,
Speaker 1: we also touched a little bit on it in the
Speaker 1: deep Web because there's some real creepy stuff you can see,
Speaker 1: um about people claiming to conduct non consensual human experiments. Right,
Speaker 1: that's the best kind, right, Yeah, that's the that's the
Speaker 1: main kind. Um. Well, where better to start off than
Speaker 1: with an article by h Robert Lamb from Stuff to
Speaker 1: Blow your Mind? Uh, great show he does, he does
Speaker 1: right for the website How Stuff Works and podcast for
Speaker 1: us and anytime you think, man, I'd be interested in
Speaker 1: hearing a show kind of like Ben and Matt's, will
Speaker 1: go ahead and check out these folks. Uh. Point being
Speaker 1: Robert has a great article on human experimentation on our
Speaker 1: website how stuff Works dot com, and he had a
Speaker 1: great quotation here, uh that one of us should read.
Speaker 1: What do you think, Matt? Yeah, I'll go for it. Okay.
Speaker 1: The issue of human experimentation generally comes down to a
Speaker 1: basic fact. When science deals directly with humans, you have
Speaker 1: to study humans eventually. It's that simple. Whether you're looking
Speaker 1: to heal ailments and injuries, build us, say, for automobile,
Speaker 1: or design a deadlier weapon, you may need to test
Speaker 1: human thresholds for disease, stress, and injury. Yeah, which I
Speaker 1: thought was a really well written way to say something
Speaker 1: that is the essentially the crux of the ethical dilemma
Speaker 1: that is human experimentation. Now we know, of course, the
Speaker 1: human experimentation dates far back into the past. I always
Speaker 1: mispronounced this guy's name the father of anatomy horror Flis
Speaker 1: horror Filius. So this guy, uh, the father of anatomy
Speaker 1: being a fairly prestigious title. Uh. He also practiced vivis section,
Speaker 1: which is a fancy word for cutting people open while
Speaker 1: they're alive, kind of to see what happens. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: um that's the kind of thing you hear about with
Speaker 1: kids experimenting on cats that turn out to be serial killers.
Speaker 1: So good job, Ruflis. Yeah, like one of the trifecta,
Speaker 1: there is a sideboard. But did you ever hear that?
Speaker 1: What was the theory that there are three warning signs
Speaker 1: that the psychologist made to figure out if someone was
Speaker 1: going to be a serial killer and arsonists later in life.
Speaker 1: One of them was torturing animals, another one's late stage
Speaker 1: bed wedding, and then re arson. Apparently bedwetters and arsonists
Speaker 1: are part of a ven diagram. It's weird. Sorry, different show.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that one. So for a long time,
Speaker 1: here's the problem with modern medicine. Um or, I guess
Speaker 1: this wouldn't even count as modern, but here's the problem. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: for quite a while, medicine depended upon the study of cadavers,
Speaker 1: and these were often from executed criminals. Yeah, and well,
Speaker 1: here's the biggest problem with working on a cadaver they're dead.
Speaker 1: Their body is completely different than a functioning human body.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of processes that occur immediately upon
Speaker 1: death and that begin to occur. So the information that
Speaker 1: you're getting, the data that you're getting from a corpse
Speaker 1: is not the same as what you would get from
Speaker 1: a living a body. Right. Yeah, that's a really good point. Um,
Speaker 1: And because we're both being grown ups, I will avoid
Speaker 1: making a lot of death fart jokes. Okay, that happens.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Okay, I think it's still concipizes that
Speaker 1: it like that. Well, yeah, and that's a good point.
Speaker 1: Because the laws were a bit shaky. This was a
Speaker 1: case where we need cadavers to study, even with their drawbacks,
Speaker 1: because you can't cut people apart while they were alive,
Speaker 1: or we shouldn't be doing that, but the laws around
Speaker 1: procuring cadavers, especially in Western Europe, were pretty difficult, leading
Speaker 1: to something called the resurrection men, which is a cool
Speaker 1: name for people who steel dead bodies or superheroes however
Speaker 1: you want to yeah, or superhero could be, it could be.
Speaker 1: It sounds it's a super heroic name, maybe some kind
Speaker 1: of I could see it as a Bible superhero some
Speaker 1: kind of contemporary Christian church puts on. Yeah, or like
Speaker 1: someone who like people who just cannot die. Oh excellent, Um,
Speaker 1: but that kind of messes up the stakes of this story.
Speaker 1: I apologize. No, no, anyway, these guys aren't don't apologize.
Speaker 1: These guys aren't superheroes. Really, their cadaver thieves. And uh,
Speaker 1: they interfered with the social fabric of their time so
Speaker 1: much that it led to the Anatomy Act of eighteen
Speaker 1: thirty two, which was passed so that medical schools wouldn't
Speaker 1: have to rely on this illegal, this bootleg corpse industry,
Speaker 1: uh to advance higher learning. So they also, uh, well
Speaker 1: it kind of it kind of follows a trend where
Speaker 1: the people that were being used for this kind of
Speaker 1: experimentation where a lot of times criminals or minorities of
Speaker 1: wherever place they were living, disabled, and a lot of
Speaker 1: times the poor. Right. Yeah, and here's where we get
Speaker 1: to a kind of scary point with human experimentation. These
Speaker 1: practices on the disenfranchised continue into the modern age, and
Speaker 1: as we see they continue in some places today. Don't
Speaker 1: get us wrong, we are we are well aware that
Speaker 1: human experimentation is necessary. Um. And some of the research
Speaker 1: that would have been just considered an atrocity in modern
Speaker 1: times did lead to valuable data about the human condition. Right,
Speaker 1: that's true. So well, let's talk about something, Ben, Let's
Speaker 1: talk about when human experimentation is just downright wrong. Okay, no,
Speaker 1: if sans and butts, it's just wrong. Okay. Uh well,
Speaker 1: all right, let's let's listen these off. One. When it's
Speaker 1: non consensual, that makes sense. I don't want anybody doing
Speaker 1: anything to me that I don't want them to do,
Speaker 1: so I can understand that that's the whole golden rule thing, right. Okay,
Speaker 1: what about when the patients are the victims are uninformed,
Speaker 1: so they don't have a chance to disagree or to
Speaker 1: give conser interesting. Uh so, I'm just trying to understand
Speaker 1: the difference between non consensual and not being informed. Non
Speaker 1: Consensual is no, don't cut me open, I'm alive, unin
Speaker 1: full armed. Is not being told that the um the
Speaker 1: food you're being given has an experimental radio radioactive tracing device.
Speaker 1: Something understood, thank you, sir. So it's it's kind of
Speaker 1: it's a difference of degree. And then when there's no
Speaker 1: regard for patient safety right now, of course, or when
Speaker 1: the patients are victims, can't refuse to participate at any point.
Speaker 1: So I'm not telling me there. That's a little yeah,
Speaker 1: that's great. That's a little bit different. So let's say
Speaker 1: we're let's say you and I are in an experiment
Speaker 1: and uh Knowle's conducting experiment. And he says, okay, guys,
Speaker 1: you're each going to get into this experiment where you
Speaker 1: stab yourselves in the hands every every ten minutes, you
Speaker 1: stab yourselves in the hands for science or whatever. And
Speaker 1: uh then, you know, let's say, eleven minutes into it,
Speaker 1: we want to quit. But he says no, and he's
Speaker 1: got the you know, the science goons tying us down.
Speaker 1: And then I got that science Well it's hypothetical, okay,
Speaker 1: but but that's the idea. And then maybe, um, I
Speaker 1: don't know about this last one, the idea that human
Speaker 1: experimentation could be wrong when they're alternative avenues of research.
Speaker 1: That's a little bit ethically iffy for some people because
Speaker 1: those alternative avenues of research could most often be animals, right,
Speaker 1: which some people have a big problem with. So we
Speaker 1: we do have substitutes for experimenting on another person, right, Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: animals are the go to um, Rabbits are cows? Are
Speaker 1: you sometimes mice? Rats? Primates? Um. There are a lot
Speaker 1: of people that see that as equally as wrong. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it might not always be appropriate on a couple of levels.
Speaker 1: Even just on the ethical level might not be appropriate,
Speaker 1: but also on the um biological level, we might get
Speaker 1: the same data. Like one thing that always escapes people,
Speaker 1: I think is when you hear a study about this much,
Speaker 1: you know, aspertame or something given to a rat induced
Speaker 1: cancer rats not a person um, And the dosages might
Speaker 1: be different as well. So it's a substitute, but it's
Speaker 1: not it's not ethical. It's only less unethical, I guess
Speaker 1: if you're saving human life. Um. But then there's the
Speaker 1: other one, which is my favorite. You know this one,
Speaker 1: the old self experimentation. Just turn that knife on yourself.
Speaker 1: Let's see what happens. Man, take that pill. Who knows,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get some data. Hopefully I'll still be around
Speaker 1: to write it down, which is great. That's a great point.
Speaker 1: One of the big problems with the sort of roll
Speaker 1: of the dice devil make are approach to science that
Speaker 1: is self experimentation, is that it's difficult to wonder how
Speaker 1: you would retain objectivity. How how can you measure the
Speaker 1: data when you are the observer and the observed absolute man,
Speaker 1: I can imagine somebody thinking that it's going a lot
Speaker 1: better because of maybe the side effects of whatever testing
Speaker 1: he's he or she is doing on themselves. Yes, and
Speaker 1: speaking testing. Now, let's run through some cases of human
Speaker 1: experimentation that is just out and out wrong. Let me
Speaker 1: jump to let's see, let's start off with the Guatemala
Speaker 1: syphilis experiments. In the forties, UH Dr John Cutler of
Speaker 1: US Public Health Service worked with the Guatemalan government to
Speaker 1: expose people to things like syphilis, gonorrhea, and uh a
Speaker 1: couple of other nasty characters, primarily to see if penicillin
Speaker 1: could prevent the affection. UM only seven people were treated. Now,
Speaker 1: many of these people already had the disease, were just
Speaker 1: observed or denied treatment. UM eighty three did die. Some
Speaker 1: of these folks were prisoners, some were soldiers, and some
Speaker 1: that were mental patients. Yeah, talking about non content there, jeez.
Speaker 1: Then you've got the Tuskegee experiments. These are probably one
Speaker 1: of the most well known episodes of human experimentation. This
Speaker 1: is UH in nineteen thirty two, all the way to
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy two. That's forty years where there were experiments
Speaker 1: with It was an experiment overall, but it was really
Speaker 1: just looking at the effects of syphilis. But the it
Speaker 1: was blackmails that had syphilis already and then there's also
Speaker 1: a control group, and they essentially just wanted to see
Speaker 1: what would happen over the time with syphilis and these men.
Speaker 1: And they they didn't deny them treatment, did they. It
Speaker 1: was they didn't. Uh, they didn't let them know that
Speaker 1: penicillin could treat syphilis, and it could and it could
Speaker 1: have they could have saved their lives exactly, but they didn't.
Speaker 1: And uh, this is interesting. IO. I owe an apology.
Speaker 1: We issue a correction about this because when we first
Speaker 1: talked about it, I say that the Public Health Service
Speaker 1: infected these people, and in the c d CES upside
Speaker 1: it says they didn't. So we did issue a correction.
Speaker 1: But I had I had a couple of people on
Speaker 1: YouTube coming up and saying, no, I'm related to someone
Speaker 1: there they were infected with syphilis by the government. So well,
Speaker 1: that's one of those things. Do you trust the government source?
Speaker 1: A lot of people don't. We We kind of ride
Speaker 1: that fine line between wanting to take what what's said
Speaker 1: and kind of use it in conjunction with other information.
Speaker 1: It's a tough spot for us to really know what
Speaker 1: the truth is. Yeah, well, we we do try to
Speaker 1: make sure that we can find it it is. It
Speaker 1: is a good point, Matt. It can be difficult at
Speaker 1: times to discern where the truth is in in between
Speaker 1: varying accounts, you know. Uh So, with all due respect
Speaker 1: everybody involved, I think the best thing that we can
Speaker 1: say is that we have conflicting reports, but the official
Speaker 1: story is that the people already had syphilis. Now we're
Speaker 1: building up to them. Probably the most well known periods
Speaker 1: of modern human experimentation, that side World War Two. Man,
Speaker 1: that's that's where are things. That's where it gets crazy. Then, yes,
Speaker 1: that's where it gets crazy. Concentration camp experiments. This is
Speaker 1: something that everybody probably knows about. I would be surprised
Speaker 1: if someone was a fan of our show and did
Speaker 1: not know that multiple scientists across various concentration camps like
Speaker 1: dock Ow, uh Sastenhausen, not Spidler, buken Walden, more, you
Speaker 1: can bold and more, we're conducting just diabolical, fiendish experiments
Speaker 1: on completely innocent people. Um. When you're looking at everything
Speaker 1: from extreme temperatures, looking at hypothermia, hypothermia, UM, pressure chambers.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's some pretty crazy stuff, trying to
Speaker 1: look at the human body and altitude and like, how
Speaker 1: what are the thresholds for the human body? Um, You're
Speaker 1: looking at diseases and actions typhoid, malaria, yellow fever, even gases,
Speaker 1: mustard gas. Uh. They Now this case, we do know
Speaker 1: it is unambiguously true that the scientists in this case
Speaker 1: did deliberately affect people with diseases. UM. Now you know
Speaker 1: one of the most infamous of these people is a
Speaker 1: fellow named Josef Mengele at Auswitz. Uh. He he was
Speaker 1: The way that we have it here um is that
Speaker 1: he was torturing people under the guise of medicine. Um.
Speaker 1: But as we look at some of his experiments, his
Speaker 1: science wasn't that great. No, it's the confirmation biased thing,
Speaker 1: trying to trying to prove his his ideological beliefs right
Speaker 1: through this experimentation about races. I mean it's really deeply
Speaker 1: seated in racism, is it not. Yeah, Yeah, it's really
Speaker 1: deeply seated in his idea of proving that um an
Speaker 1: aryan man us to race was somehow superior to other people.
Speaker 1: So as founding principles run sound, which made his science unsound. Uh.
Speaker 1: He had one thing we should mention. Uh. He had
Speaker 1: a number of obsessions. Probably the most well known would
Speaker 1: be his obsession with twins. Um do twins, Uh experience
Speaker 1: each other's emotions? If something happens, to which win will
Speaker 1: the other one be aware? Um oregan transplants experimented with
Speaker 1: as well. Apparently there are a lot of grizzly things
Speaker 1: that happened to one twin and perhaps not to the other,
Speaker 1: and one survived. That's really crazy stuff. Yeah, And just
Speaker 1: as an example to show how off his science was,
Speaker 1: he would have experiments where he had this concussion or
Speaker 1: head injury experiment where they just had this kid being
Speaker 1: hit over and over in the head with a hammer.
Speaker 1: Good god, kind of well to see what happens, which
Speaker 1: is such a strange question. You know, what happens when
Speaker 1: you just get hit in the head with a hammer.
Speaker 1: You know, let's find out just forever one and a hammer. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and this pales and you know, we're not making light
Speaker 1: of this, If anything, we're indicting the guy for um
Speaker 1: going so far with such bad science. Um, but yeah,
Speaker 1: he wasn't the only one. Was. The Germans were not
Speaker 1: the only people doing experimentations at the time. The UM
Speaker 1: Japan also had a little bout with human experimentation. That's
Speaker 1: of course Unit seven thirty one that was headed by
Speaker 1: shiro Ishi and that was founded in nineteen thirty two
Speaker 1: and it was active from nineteen thirty seven to nineteen
Speaker 1: and um there again lots of experiments with chemicals, with
Speaker 1: biological agents against stuff to poison, like exposing people to
Speaker 1: poisonous substances and extreme temperatures again, more vivisection and even
Speaker 1: you know, diseases like the bubonic plague. Now they were
Speaker 1: top secret right at the time. Yeah, that was found
Speaker 1: out later. This is this. Uh, these two cases are
Speaker 1: interesting because um, some of the members of Unit thirty
Speaker 1: one had diplomatic immunity at the close of the war
Speaker 1: because the idea was that their experiments um, as messed
Speaker 1: up as they were and how or as horrific as
Speaker 1: they were, their experiments did have some sort of scientific
Speaker 1: merit and most importantly they could never be repeated. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but that information was important, like you said, and what
Speaker 1: happened to it. Funny story. Funny story about what happened
Speaker 1: to it. We know what happened to uh, some of it.
Speaker 1: We know that a lot of it did end up
Speaker 1: in the United States and informed later epidemiological research on
Speaker 1: our end. We also know that a lot of its
Speaker 1: state classified. So what's your take on that using using
Speaker 1: the information that came directly from the suffering of people. Well,
Speaker 1: to be candid with you, and that is a great
Speaker 1: question to be candid with you. I think that it's Ah,
Speaker 1: it's our possibility as people to use that kind of
Speaker 1: information if there's a way to prevent further deaths. Um,
Speaker 1: what about you? Actually, I think we I think it
Speaker 1: is our responsibility also to have that information because that's
Speaker 1: information that could be when you look at something with
Speaker 1: the extreme temperatures. Let's just take that as an example,
Speaker 1: all right, imagine how that probably has informed things like
Speaker 1: clothing for extreme temperatures. UM, trauma. Yeah right, I mean
Speaker 1: there there are great things that will eventually come out
Speaker 1: of it, as horrible as it is, and hopefully will
Speaker 1: never happen again. That one time that it happened in
Speaker 1: the nineteen forties that we know of that we know
Speaker 1: of we've gained a lot of information and it's terror
Speaker 1: it's horrible to think about it. Well, yeah, that's and
Speaker 1: you know, that's a fair point. There's an ongoing debate
Speaker 1: today about whether the day provided by these experiments is
Speaker 1: useful or if so, to what degree. And there are
Speaker 1: people who will say that it wasn't useful at all.
Speaker 1: But as we found out, if we turn from that
Speaker 1: chapter of history and go just a little bit further
Speaker 1: into the future, Um, we go to St. Louis. Oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: an old St. Louis in nineteen fifties and nineteen sixties,
Speaker 1: in the early days of the Cold War, the army
Speaker 1: arrived in St. Louis and began spraying zinc cadmium sulfide
Speaker 1: on children and families. Yeah. And uh, these these poor,
Speaker 1: unfortunate folks were from the Pruitt Ego housing projects. So
Speaker 1: again we see the pattern of taking advantage of the
Speaker 1: disenfranchised to the poor. Um to see how this would
Speaker 1: how this would work out? Um, do you want to
Speaker 1: talk about another this is it feels weird saying that
Speaker 1: this is one of our favorites because it's such a
Speaker 1: grizzly thing to discuss. Yeah, yeah, um, mk Ultra, I mean, yes, sir,
Speaker 1: Well that's this one. This one is fascinating to me
Speaker 1: obviously because there are you can read some of the
Speaker 1: reports on the information from this, they declassified information. So
Speaker 1: this the mk Ultra is the c I a program
Speaker 1: where LSD was used to test essentially essentially psychology. Yeah,
Speaker 1: finger quotes around tests there. Yeah, this is true. But
Speaker 1: this is this is the infamous one that you've probably
Speaker 1: heard about. You may have heard of Project Artichoke. We
Speaker 1: did a whole series on Artichoke, which was I believe
Speaker 1: the predecessor of mk Ultra. Yeah. Mk Ultra had a
Speaker 1: couple of predecessors, and it had a couple of sub programs.
Speaker 1: The ideas were that some of the ideas were things like,
Speaker 1: will LSD function as a truth serum? Or will l
Speaker 1: s D allow us to make a Manchurian candidate, to
Speaker 1: compel somebody to do something that they would not usually do.
Speaker 1: But they just went not with it. They went nuts
Speaker 1: and bananas with it. They were dosing everybody and their mom.
Speaker 1: They were dosing you know, they were getting prostitutes to
Speaker 1: pull guys over and like a honey pot trap and
Speaker 1: then dosing those guys. They were dosing each other. They
Speaker 1: were doing a little joking, Hey I dosed you. I know,
Speaker 1: we're having this dinner party, but which you know, quickly
Speaker 1: becomes more of a portrait of an agency out of control,
Speaker 1: um than any kind of rigorous human experimentation. Although there
Speaker 1: was a sort of merit to what they were doing
Speaker 1: because they did learn valuable things. Um, But then I
Speaker 1: think they went out of control with it, and that
Speaker 1: is just we're just scratching the surface. We're just touching
Speaker 1: on some of the more well known human experimentation examples. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's psychological stuff that could not be repeated today, like
Speaker 1: the Stanford prison experiment, um, the or the Milgram experiment
Speaker 1: I believe, and the Stanford prison one is where they
Speaker 1: took some students, they divided them into prison guards and prisoners, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it quickly it was found out that when you
Speaker 1: when you play someone in a position of power at
Speaker 1: the guards, they take on this other so um, just
Speaker 1: these qualities that that hadn't been really observed before. How
Speaker 1: quickly that those qualities were taken in Yeah, and to
Speaker 1: such an extreme degree, to the point of being abusive
Speaker 1: to the pseudo prisoners and so on. You know, what's
Speaker 1: what's always startling to me about the psychological experiments And
Speaker 1: I have a question for you about these later, But
Speaker 1: what's always startling to me is that it calls to
Speaker 1: mind how much the human mind is like water and
Speaker 1: it conforms to its container. And the containers would be
Speaker 1: the roles, uh, that society gives us or that we
Speaker 1: give ourselves. So there's there's so many implications about this.
Speaker 1: You know, what kind of what kind of container do
Speaker 1: you put somebody in socially if you want them to
Speaker 1: be successful? What do you do if you want them
Speaker 1: to fail? And how do we apply that knowledge? This
Speaker 1: is what I'm thinking about during the HR meetings. Man,
Speaker 1: you guys can't see this, but Ben Ben looks at
Speaker 1: me so intensely sometimes when he's saying these things. It's
Speaker 1: it's incredible. You you have to do it one day.
Speaker 1: You have to sit across from Ben. H. I would
Speaker 1: highly recommend it. Oh man, Uh, that's that's weird. Man.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe some people in the audience have already set
Speaker 1: across from us in disguise, right what, it's all part
Speaker 1: of our experiment. There were also epidemiological experiments. This is
Speaker 1: when you told me about, Matt. Oh, yeah, this is
Speaker 1: the this is Operation Big Buzz Wow. Okay, so this
Speaker 1: is where Mosquito it was. It was tested whether or
Speaker 1: not mosquitoes would be a good weapon. If you weaponize
Speaker 1: the mosquitoes by infecting them with yellow fever and then
Speaker 1: you send out this massive swarm of mosquitoes on your enemies,
Speaker 1: everybody gets yellow fever over there. Um, let's see if
Speaker 1: this works. So it was tested in Georgia actually nineteen
Speaker 1: and um, I don't know. It just seemed like a
Speaker 1: crazy idea to me. It sounds like an interesting idea. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's and you know if from a tactical perspective, it's
Speaker 1: it's smart warfare. If it would work, it's interesting. Ben.
Speaker 1: It makes me think about the West Nile outbreak that
Speaker 1: happened in a couple of different places, and it was
Speaker 1: largely thought that mosquitoes were the carriers of the West
Speaker 1: Nile virus. Hum. I don't know. It just makes me think, oh, dude,
Speaker 1: is somebody send some West ni house Quito's over here? Man. Well,
Speaker 1: if you think about it, it's I mean, it makes
Speaker 1: sense that a country or a government would want to
Speaker 1: learn how to propagate things that way, because that's how
Speaker 1: Mosquito has already been doing it for you know, thousands
Speaker 1: of years, millions of years. Maybe, so it's I think
Speaker 1: it's smart. I think it's ethnically questionable. Um, we should
Speaker 1: probably we should probably save some of the radiation experiments
Speaker 1: for another day. But just to just to make it clear.
Speaker 1: For instance, um, with radiation, these are things like exposing
Speaker 1: children who are orphans, were disabled to rods of radioactive
Speaker 1: material may be inserted in their nose or their septum. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, see what happens. Just for funzies, Radiation poisoning
Speaker 1: is what happens. Radiation poisoning is what happens. Uh. You
Speaker 1: can read a fairly comprehensive history of some of these
Speaker 1: experiments online if you especially if you do radiation experiments
Speaker 1: United States, Cold War, you'll find some you'll find some
Speaker 1: amazing stuff. But we are going to wrap up by
Speaker 1: pointing out a place where this kind of experimentation is
Speaker 1: still going on today. Isn't that right? Matter? Yes, then
Speaker 1: we have to head over to the old DPRK, North Korea,
Speaker 1: and we've got some crazy information. They're a defector. Is
Speaker 1: that say this is still going on in prison camps. Yes. Uh,
Speaker 1: one of those defectors being a guy named Dr Kim,
Speaker 1: one of the three research scientists working with the blessing
Speaker 1: of the leadership and the Workers Party which kind of
Speaker 1: runs the country. Uh. He testified that he had developed
Speaker 1: a chemical weapon that was cyanide mixed with another compound
Speaker 1: and experimented with it on on people who are caught
Speaker 1: in a place called Camp twenty two, which is a
Speaker 1: notorious prison camp. Future historians are going to be baffled
Speaker 1: and probably sickened by the concentration camp situation in North Korea. Geopolitically, Uh,
Speaker 1: it's such that no other countries rushing in to help
Speaker 1: these people. But for a long time, these rumors of
Speaker 1: human tests and were just that rumors. But now a
Speaker 1: scientist who defected from there is saying um that that
Speaker 1: it is all true, and his stories are backed up
Speaker 1: with facts as confirmed by intelligence agents. And it's especially
Speaker 1: important to know that Camp twenty two is just one
Speaker 1: of tons. I don't know how many exactly there are,
Speaker 1: it's it's secret, but there are a lot of them.
Speaker 1: And we're going to do an episode on North Korea
Speaker 1: to so stay tuned for that one. But when we
Speaker 1: get to the question of what else could be going
Speaker 1: on right now, Well, we can't really know. Nope, there's
Speaker 1: a there's a culture of secrecy that makes it difficult
Speaker 1: to know for sure until after the fact. But we
Speaker 1: do We do know that human experimentation continues, hopefully in
Speaker 1: a more ethical way. Um. And pretty much every every
Speaker 1: region of the world. The United States has DARPA, you know,
Speaker 1: we have other experiments or other experimentation centers in Russia
Speaker 1: and China and Japan. Across the world, people are experimenting
Speaker 1: on human beings, hopefully in a more ethnic a way. UM.
Speaker 1: That I have to ask you about the future. All right,
Speaker 1: I'm ready. So do you think that technology could ever
Speaker 1: reach a point where human experimentation is unnecessary? Absolutely? Okay?
Speaker 1: How well, I think it will be a combination of
Speaker 1: computer models of the human body and how one functions,
Speaker 1: and something to do with possibly creating a human that
Speaker 1: isn't necessarily a human. So a body that isn't necessarily
Speaker 1: considered a human. Perhaps it doesn't have a brain, or
Speaker 1: perhaps it doesn't it only has a central nervous system
Speaker 1: that can be tested. Now here's my question, you, ben, Okay,
Speaker 1: if we could make that kind of being a a
Speaker 1: corpse body that's alive. Would you be okay with testing
Speaker 1: on it? Um? You know, I would probably be more
Speaker 1: comfortable with it if it were made a piece meal.
Speaker 1: If there were, you know, it'd be much less ethically difficult.
Speaker 1: I think to conduct experiments on a human heart by itself,
Speaker 1: or a foot or toe or and I I know
Speaker 1: that's grizzly. But the idea, the idea of making a
Speaker 1: whole body and just taking away the brain. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that it makes me question my own idea
Speaker 1: because if it doesn't have a brain, how do we
Speaker 1: know how the singles are being interpreted? And that's usually
Speaker 1: the most important thing, Like what what are the effects
Speaker 1: on the human and the way you find that out
Speaker 1: is through the brain. Well, what about then, a virtual
Speaker 1: simulation of a human being with such fidelity that you
Speaker 1: could you could treat it exactly like virtual models, So
Speaker 1: you wouldn't have the hands on experience, but would you
Speaker 1: would know the effects of different things. You just have
Speaker 1: to be able to code those effects, right, Yeah, which
Speaker 1: means you might have to have a person to begin with. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, Okay, so we're gonna leave it
Speaker 1: up to you. Guys. We know that we and a
Speaker 1: little bit long on this, but I like this episode, Matt,
Speaker 1: because we went from hidden history, one of our favorite things,
Speaker 1: to the precipice of the future. Right, that's right and
Speaker 1: beyond and beyond. Uh and speaking beyond, we are going
Speaker 1: to head out and go beyond the studio here, guys,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for tuning in. We hope that you
Speaker 1: are enjoying our new show. We'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 1: Give us some ideas for upcoming topics, let us know
Speaker 1: some of your perspectives on human experimentation, or you know,
Speaker 1: just say what's up. Give me a shout out if
Speaker 1: you want to talk to us. Heading over to Facebook,
Speaker 1: we are conspiracy Stuff. You can also find us on Twitter.
Speaker 1: We are at conspiracy Stuff. You can go to our
Speaker 1: YouTube channel, which is YouTube dot com slash conspiracy stuff
Speaker 1: or test tube dot com. Again, I think that one
Speaker 1: you have to go just find stuff they don't want
Speaker 1: you to know on test Tube. Yeah, so many, so
Speaker 1: many different dot coms than Internet. We're on Google t Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're apparently on Google Plus. We should probably get a tumbler.
Speaker 1: Um we're gonna start binding. It's gonna be crazy. Oh man, Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's just always do vide videos. You can also email
Speaker 1: us directly. We are conspiracy at Discovery dot com. From
Speaker 1: more on this topic, another unexplained phenomenon, visit test tube
Speaker 1: dot com slash conspiracy stuff. You can also get in
Speaker 1: touch on Twitter at the handle at conspiracy stuff.