Feb 282011
 

The story that is the subject of this blog entry testifies to the immorality of scientists.The story describes various historical instances in which scientists used human beings as guinea pigs for science experiments.

No caring, sympathetic, or empathetic human being can do anything to another human being that will cause them pain or upset. That means scientists, whose job is supposedly to help their fellow human beings through scientific discoveries, are uncaring, unsympathetic, and have no empathy at all.

Scientists are dangerously stoopid individuals who have no compunction about giving someone like you or me a disease just because they want to see what happens, or doing whatever they think is best to us, regardless of what we tell them.

The original story is reprinted next

——————————————

Uncovered old pictures provide documents that US doctors working for the government carried out unethical experiments on disabled citizens and prison inmates.

During a meeting in Washington, US officials acknowledged that in the 20th century government doctors had done a series of medical experiments on the country’s own citizens that often involved making healthy people sick.

While much of the experiments were carried out 40 to 80 years ago, it is the backdrop for this week’s meeting in Washington of a presidential bioethics commission.

The meeting was triggered by the US government’s apology last year for federal doctors infecting prisoners and mental patients in Guatemala with syphilis 65 years ago.

However, later on the US officials also acknowledged there had been dozens of similar experiments in America, which often involved making healthy people sick.

An Associated Press review of medical journal reports and decades-old press clippings found more than 40 such studies, which some just amounted to curiosity-satisfying experiments that hurt people but provided no useful result.

The emerged shocking experiments included infecting mental patients in Connecticut with hepatitis, exposing prisoners in Maryland to a pandemic flu virus, injecting cancer cells into chronically ill people at a New York hospital, and infecting prison inmates with gonorrhea at a federal penitentiary in Atlanta.

Media never covered most of the newly uncovered studies done from the 1940s to the 1960s. However, in those reported the coverage centered on the breakthrough and not how test subjects were treated.

At that time, many famous researchers believed that it was legitimate to do experiment on people who did not have full rights in society such as prisoners, mental patients or the poor blacks.

However, experts believe that all such studies violated the concept of “first do no harm,” that is a fundamental medical principle.

Although, individuals included in these studies were usually described as volunteers, historians and ethicists have questioned how well these people understood what was to be done to them and why, or whether they were coerced.

“When you give somebody a disease — even by the standards of their time — you really cross the key ethical norm of the profession,” said Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics.

Using prisoners as guinea pigs was continued in the US for decades and even increased significantly late in 1940s and 1950s after the huge growth of drug industries.

This happened while prosecution of Nazi doctors in 1947 led to the “Nuremberg Code,” a set of international rules to protect human test subjects. However, many US doctors ignored them for years, arguing that the rule applied to Nazi atrocities and not to American medicine.

In later decades after the new guidelines enacted by the US government limited the human experiments on American prisoners and mental patients, researchers looked to other countries to find new experimental fields.

The target was poor countries that launching clinical trials in them were much cheaper and less limited due to the lack of rules. Even more the situation of the poor nations brought the US researchers and drug companies new opportunities to find patients who were taking no medication, a factor that can complicate tests of other drugs.

While, later additional sets of guidelines were enacted against overseas experiments, some reports still suggest that US industries are continuing their habits of using people instead of animal or lab samples.

During the last 15 years, two international studies sparked outrage. One was likened to Tuskegee. US-funded doctors failed to give the AIDS drug AZT to all the HIV-infected pregnant women in a study in Uganda even though it would have protected their newborns.

The other study, by Pfizer Inc., gave an antibiotic named Trovan to children with meningitis in Nigeria, although there were doubts about its effectiveness for that disease. Critics blamed the experiment for the deaths of 11 children and the disabling of scores of others.

Last year, the US Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general reported that between 40 and 65 percent of clinical studies of federally regulated medical products were done in other countries in 2008, and that proportion probably has grown.

The report also noted that US regulators inspected less than 1 percent of foreign clinical trial sites.

Uncovering what the US doctors had done in Guatemala was an opening for the Obama administration to have the bioethics panel seek a new evaluation of international medical studies.

To focus on federally funded international studies, the bioethics commission has formed an international panel of about a dozen experts. Regarding the Guatemala study, it has hired 15 staff investigators and is working with more historians and consulting experts.

The panel is to send a report to President Barack Obama by September. Any further steps would be up to the administration

Feb 272011
 

This series of blog posts presents examples of heads that are interesting for some reason related to Phrenology and/or Happeh Theory. The example image for this blog post is shown above.

The science of Phrenology claims that the size and shape of the head is related to the personality and mentality of a human being. Modern science states that the claims of Phrenology are false, and that the science of Phrenology is superstitious nonsense.

Please take a moment to closely examine the example image while making your own personal judgement about the two men in the picture.

If Modern Science is right that the science of Phrenology is nonsense, the reader should feel that both men are have similar personalities and similar mentalities even though they have vastly different head shapes.

The majority of readers though will decide that the two men have different personalities and different mentalities. What is the reader basing that decision on? The strongest influence has to be the shape of each man’s head because the photograph is focused on their heads. The only other thing that might give the reader something to judge the men by would be their skin color or the condition of their upper body.

Since it seems obvious that Modern Scientists are foolish, what is it about the heads of the two men that gives the reader clues the two men have different personalities and mentalies? The science of Phrenology is very simple and the factors used to make decisions about other human beings are trivial to observe. The observations the science of Phrenology and/or Happeh Theory would use to judge the condition of the two men follow.

The shape of the black man’s head is very complex. That complex shape is outlined in the next picture.

In contrast, the Hispanic man’s head has a very simple shape as highlighted by the outline in this picture.

The main differences between the two heads that the reader, the science of Phrenology, or Happeh Theory, use to judge the personality and mentality of each of the men, include the almost flat back of the Hispanic man’s head,

and the mostly flat front of his face.

In contrast, the front of the black man’s face is made up of large bumps and deep valleys.

The back of the black man’s head looks like a huge bump compared to the flat back of the head of the Hispanic man.

It is the position of Happeh Theory that regular people, without even realizing it, use the principles of Phrenology every day when they meet others. Their life experience has taught them that if they meet a man with a flat back of the head, that man will display a certain personality and mentality. If they meet a man with a big bump sticking out of the back of his head, that man will have a different personality and mentality.

From a scientific perspective, the difference in the personality and mentality of both men can be explained with nothing more than the simple concept of volume. The flattish head of the Hispanic man surrounds a certain volume of brain that influences his personality and mentality.

That volume is represented by the half pint bottle shown in this picture.

The head of the black man with all of the bumps on the front of his face and the huge bump on the back of his head means the volume surrounded by his head is larger,

and represented by the one quart bottle in this picture.

A child knows that the larger bottle contains more fluid than the smaller bottle,

so of course there is more of whatever inside of the larger volume skull of the black man than there is inside of the smaller volume skull of the Hispanic man.

It is nothing more than common sense that if there is more of “something” inside of the head of the black man, then his personality and mentality would be different than the personality and mentality of the Hispanic man who has less of the “something” in his smaller volume head.

Feb 252011
 

According to Happeh Theory, every insulting physical gesture created by every human culture that ever has existed, was inspired by the actual physical appearance of a weak or inferior human being. This blog entry discusses one of those insulting physical gestures, which is shown in the following picture.

The insulting gesture is made by holding the left hand up to the face,

fully extending the thumb and touching it’s tip to the tip of nose,

while the fingers are extended and splayed apart.

The man’s mouth is hanging open,

and his tongue is hanging out of his mouth.

All of those relatively small movements of individual parts of the body, are accompanied by a leaning forwards of the entire upper body and the head.

According to Happeh Theory, the collection of body movements involved in making that insult, are the same movements that are made uncontrollably, by human beings who have a weak or undeveloped Yin part of the body. The affected individuals literally cannot stop those parts of their body from moving the way they do.

The gesture is an insult because it is saying “I know you cannot stop yourself from making this physical movement I am performing, because you have a weak Yin part of the body, which we all know means you are physically and mentally weak”.

The next picture shows an example human being whose body displays the signs of weak Yin meant to be mocked or insulted by the gesture the other man was shown performing.

The first thing to note is that both men have one hand up by their face.

Even though the man whose body is changed has only one finger sticking up in the air,

the hand of his energy body can be visualized as looking almost exactly like the hand of the man making the insulting gesture.

The mouth of the man with relatively weak Yin,

is hanging slightly open in a way similar to the way the man making the insulting gesture is opening his mouth.

If the man’s allowed his tongue to fall into it’s natural position instead of consciously holding it inside of his mouth, it would hang slightly outside of his mouth like the tongue of the man making the insulting gesture.

The appearance of the left eye of the man with weak Yin is the strongest indicator that the man does have a weak Yin part of the body.  The man’s left eye is clearly smaller than his right eye.

The right eye is nice and round and wide open,


while the left eye is smaller and darker.


The man’s left eye looks smaller and tighter because the entire left side of his face is shrunken.

The man’s shrunken and weak Yin, whose condition was determined by the just pointed out observations about his body, cannot prevent the man’s body from making the collection of movements, that are being mocked by the insulting physical gesture demonstrated in this picture.

Feb 222011
 

One of the most frequently given reasons people provide for being unwilling to believe the claims of Happeh Theory, is that they go against established scientific claims or they are refuted by scientists.

That seems like a reasonable reaction since people are taught scientists are respected people who should be trusted, and “Happeh” is an unknown stranger on the internet.

Scientists are not infallible. They make mistakes as this series of blog entries will demonstrate. Every blog entry in this series provides an example of scientists being wrong about something.

Hopefully, after perusing these examples of scientists making mistakes, people will be more willing to believe the claims of Happeh Theory are correct, and that scientists are the ones who have made a mistake.

The news story this blog entry is based on reports on a drug that was supposed to help heart patients, but ended up killing thousands of them.

———————-

Vioxx Deaths Estimated At 60,000 Worldwide

About 60,000 people worldwide are estimated to have died after using the painkiller Vioxx

Scientists_Make_Mistakes-Vioxx

manufactured by Merck, the third-largest drug maker of the United States, which could face a potential US$18 billion lawsuit.

A Texas jury found last week Merck & Co. liable in the death of a 59-year-old marathon runner who took the once-popular pain reliever Vioxx, and awarded his widow US$253.4 million.

The case drew nationwide attention because it was the first of about 4,000 Vioxx wrongful death and injury lawsuits ! including hundreds in Los Angeles ! to reach trial.

The suits alleged that the company rushed Vioxx to market without adequate tests and downplayed risks of heart attacks and strokes from the blockbuster drug before voluntarily withdrawing it from the market last year.

Robert Ernst, the victim, had worked as a produce manager at Wal-Mart and died in his sleep of a heart problem in 2001 after taking Vioxx for eight months to ease pain in his hands.

Merck said it was disappointed by the verdict and would appeal.

A total of 103 suspected Vioxx-related deaths have been officially notified in Britain. Most died of heart or gut complications after taking the drug. But calculations by The Sunday Times, based on known levels of underreporting by doctors of medicine-related deaths, suggest that the true toll is closer to 2,000.

Lawyers for many of the relatives are considering filing claims in U.S. courts against the pharmaceuticals giant, after the Legal Services Commission decided not to fund any cases in Britain.

The families of the dead will be joined by patients who survived but who blame serious conditions, such as strokes and paralysis, on the drug.

In one British case, Kenneth Wood, 71, a retired Shropshire laboratory technician, died of a massive heart attack while taking part in a trial to see if the painkiller could also be effective in treating colon cancer.

A confidential Merck report, not revealed to Wood?s widow, described his death as ?probably? caused by the drug. Other participants who suffered problems included a 73-year-old Leeds man who died from the complications of stomach bleeding; a 78-year-old man from Grimsby who developed angina; and a Yeovil woman, aged 64, whose heart failed after she started taking Vioxx.

Informed consent documents and other confidential papers show that Wood was not told of any serious risks and that mounting concerns among scientists and regulators, which had surfaced several years earlier, were kept from trial participants.

Merck achieved a worldwide market of some 20 million users by promoting Vioxx as a miracle drug. It was said to offer all the painkilling and other properties of aspirin, but without the commonest side effect: stomach ulcers. Doctors prescribed it for pain control for everything from arthritis to sports injuries.

The documents that have emerged suggest evidence of serious problems with Vioxx which were downplayed.

Drugs such as Vioxx, and Pfizer Inc.’s Celebrex, were developed as more stomach-friendly treatments than other antiinflammatory drugs such as naproxen or Advil.

Vioxx generated US$2.5 billion in sales for Merck last year. In September 2004, the company pulled the drug from the market after a study showed that it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes after 18 months of use.

Feb 082011
 
Scientists believe human being has become smarter than his ancestors despite the fact that the size of his brain has reduced in the past 30,000 years.

Anthropologists found that the size of the brain in the modern human called Homo sapiens has decreased by about 10 percent from 1,500 to 1,359 cubic centimeters in the past 30 millenniums.

While the finding has amazed some scientists, others believe the reduction in the human’s body size during the time has lessened his need to have a bigger brain.

Furthermore, living in a safer environment and less hostile surroundings has decreased the human’s need to have a bigger body mass and brain’s gray matter for controlling the body and learning skills to survive in dangerous atmosphere.

Findings also suggest that the size of the human’s brain has decreased through its evolution as the population density increased.

“As complex societies emerged, the brain became smaller because people did not have to be as smart to stay alive,” said Psychology professor David Geary of the University of Missouri.

However, the decrease of the brain’s mass doesn’t mean that Homo sapiens are less smart than their ancestors but shows that they are developing their intelligence and skills in new and more sophisticated dimensions, said Brian Hare, an assistant professor of anthropology at Duke University.

A similar trend in the development of brain has been shown in domestic animals. While wolves have larger brains compared to their domestic relatives, dogs behave far more sophisticated, intelligent and flexible and even similar to small human babies.