Unethical Human Experiments

SCEp. 10: Unethical Human Experiments
(Intro Music)
Intro: 
Hello and welcome to strange circumstances where we explore the strange, mysterious  and unexplained happenings from around the world.  Im your host Edwin Everhart.


Once again I want to thank you for listening and being apart of the Red Tide Studios family.  


Before we begin, please take a minute to subscribe and leave a review.  And dont forget to visit linktr.ee/red tide studio where you can donate to the show through patreon, visit the red tide studio store and join in on my social media pages.  


In todays episode we will take a look at some of the most horrific & unethical human experiments of the 20th and 21st centuries.  Some of what you will learn will leave you shocked and disturbed.  Most of these cases being conducted by your very own government.  And if that doesn't frighten you then I'm not sure what will.  


Our first story goes back to the beginning of World War 2 in a Japanese occupied China where experiments to weaponize biological warfare began to take place.  This is… 
Unit 731
(Transition SFX)
Most of us heard about the horrible experiments on humans of the Nazis done by doctor Mengele. But the Nazis weren’t alone in conducting cruel experiments on humans.
One of the lesser known atrocities of the 20th century was committed by the Imperial Japanese Army’s Unit 731. Some of the details of this unit’s activities are still uncovered.
For 40 years, the horrific activities of “Unit 731” remained one the most closely guarded secrets of World War II. It was not until 1984 that Japan acknowledged what it had long denied – vile experiments on humans conducted by the unit in preparation for biological warfare.
Deliberately infected with plague, anthrax, cholera and other pathogens, an estimated 3,000 enemy soldiers and civilians were used as guinea pigs. 
Some of the more horrific experiments included vivisection without anesthesia and pressure chambers to see how much a human could take before their eyes popped out.
Unit 731 was set up in 1938 in Japanese-occupied China with the aim of developing biological weapons. It also operated a secret research and experimental school in Shinjuku, central Tokyo. Its head was Lieutenant Shiro Ishii.
The unit was supported by Japanese universities and medical schools which supplied doctors and research staff. 
According to reports never officially admitted by the Japanese authorities, the unit used thousands of Chinese and other Asian civilians and wartime prisoners as human guinea pigs to breed and develop killer diseases.
Many of the prisoners, who were murdered in the name of research, were used in hideous vivisection and other medical experiments, including barbaric trials to determine the effect of frostbite on the human body.
To ease the conscience of those involved, the prisoners were referred to not as people or patients but as “Maruta”, or wooden logs. 
Before Japan’s surrender, the site of the experiments was completely destroyed, so that no evidence is left.
Then, the remaining 400 prisoners were shot and employees of the unit had to swear secrecy. 
The mice kept in the laboratory were then released, which could have cost the lives of 30,000 people, since the mice were infected with the bubonic plague, and they spread the disease.
Few of those involved with Unit 731 have admitted their guilt.
Some caught in China at the end of the war were arrested and detained, but only a handful of them were prosecuted for war crimes.
In Japan, not one was brought to justice. In a secret deal, the post-war American administration gave them immunity for prosecution in return for details of their experiments.
Some of the worst criminals, including Hisato Yoshimura, who was in charge of the frostbite experiments, went on to occupy key medical and other posts in public and private sectors.
Unit 731 and Unit 100 were the two biological warfare research centers set up in spite of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 banning biological and chemical warfare.
Led by Lieutenant-General Ishii Shiro, 3,000 Japanese researchers working at Unit 731’s headquarters in Harbin infected live human beings with diseases such as the plague and anthrax and then disemboweled them without anesthesia to see how the diseases infected human organs.
Because of the Unit’s secret nature, there is no complete list of the experiments that were undertaken by Unit 731.
Testimonies from participants shed some light about parts of the experiments. An anonymous medical assistant described in a 1995 New York Times interview his first vivisection:
(VC: Deep)
“The fellow knew that it was over for him, and so he didn’t struggle when they led him into the room and tied him down. But when I picked up the scalpel, that’s when he began screaming. I cut him open from the chest to the stomach, and he screamed terribly, and his face was all twisted in agony. He made this unimaginable sound, he was screaming so horribly. But then finally he stopped. This was all in a day’s work for the surgeons, but it really left an impression on me because it was my first time.”
But the Unit was not only infamous for its vivisections. 
Some prisoners sent to Unit 731 were taken outside and tied to stakes. The Japanese would then test new biological weapons such as plague cultures or bombs filled with plague-infested fleas on them.
Other studies involved exposing human guinea pigs to their limits. Humans were locked inside pressure chambers to test how much the body could take before their eyes popped out.
Some human test subjects were taken outside during the harsh winter until their limbs froze off for the doctors to experiment on how best to treat frostbite.
Since the Japanese army used poison gas during the war, one of Unit 731’s missions was to develop a more potent poison gas, thus prisoners were subjected to poisoning as well.
In 1984, a graduate student at Keio Medical University in Tokyo found records of human experiments in a bookstore. 
The pages described the effects of massive doses of tetanus vaccines. There were tables describing the length of time it took victims to die and recorded the muscle spasms in their bodies.
At least 3,000 people, not just Chinese but also Russians, Mongolians and Koreans, died from the experiments performed by Unit 731 between 1939 and 1945. No prisoner came out alive from the Unit’s gates.
During the war, the Japanese Imperial Army used biological weapons developed and manufactured by Unit 731’s laboratory in Harbin throughout China, killing or injuring an estimated 300,000 people.
For its part, the Japanese government did not acknowledge the existence of Unit 731 until recently. When it became apparent that Japan would be defeated, Japanese soldiers destroyed the headquarters of Unit 731.
The Chinese later rebuilt some of the main buildings and began setting up a museum in 1982.
Eight years ago, 180 Chinese victims and families of victims sued the Japanese government, demanding an apology, compensation and a full disclosure of Unit 731’s activities.
Last month, the Tokyo High Court acknowledged the existence of Unit 731 but upheld a lower court ruling that denied the plaintiffs compensation.
None of the Japanese scientists in Unit 731 were ever punished.
In 1946, US General Douglas MacArthur granted all the Japanese scientists immunity from war crimes prosecution in exchange for the germ warfare data gathered from experiments in Harbin.
As explained in an internal War Department memorandum, dated June 23, 1947: “Since it is believed that the USSR possesses only a small portion of the technical information, and since any war-crimes action would completely reveal such data to all nations, it is felt that such publicity must be avoided in the interests of defense and security of the U.S.
It is believed also that the war-crimes prosecution of Gen. Ishii and his associates would serve to stop the flow of much additional information of a technical and scientific nature.”
Gen. Ishii lived on the outskirts of Tokyo until his death in 1959. 


Other “graduates” of Unit 731 include the former governor of Tokyo, the former president of the Japan Medical Association, the former director of the health ministry’s preventive health research center, the former chairman and president of Green Cross Corp. and the past heads of a number of Japanese medical schools. 
The man in charge of vivisections, Yoshisuke Murata, became director of the respected Kyoto University medical school, and later medical director at Kinki University.
As all the prisoners of Unit 731 were killed, and the employees swore secrecy about the experiments, first-hand testimonies are very hard to come by.
Yoshio Shinozuka, 69, of Yokaichi City, east of Tokyo, was a 15-year-old Imperial Army Youth Corps cadet when he was assigned to Unit 731 in Manchuria in May, 1939. He stayed with the unit until August, 1943.
After the war, he remained with an active unit in China, was arrested there in 1952 along with other former Unit 731 members and detained until 1956 without being prosecuted.
He said he had been assigned to a germ-producing section of Unit 731 which had experimented mostly with rats, and also had been involved with epidemic prevention research.
From time to time, more experienced Youth Corps members were asked to help with human experiments although security was tight and secrecy obsessive.
(VC:Deep)
“There was a special cell (for human experiments) which had a window but it was almost impossible to see in.  It had iron doors which were always locked and guarded. To get in, you needed special permits and a pass with a photograph, and the entrance and exit times were recorded. It was very strict.
Towards the end of my time with the unit I went in twice when maruta experiments were being conducted. The two people seemed to have just died and had been opened up.
My job was to collect parts containing the bacteria and put them in a glass case . . . for confirmation of how far the disease had spread through the body.”
(VC: Normal)
Mr Shinozuka said that after four years of training with, and “brain-washing” by, the unit, he knew what was happening at Harbin and was not surprised at what he saw in the cell. He had not even felt guilt at being part of it.
It was only after the war, when he was in custody of the Chinese, that he had become aware of the full horror of Unit 731’s activities.
(VC:Deep)
“Before the war, we were told we’d have to fight to protect ourselves, our families and the Japanese people.
When we were detained by the Chinese, we found the authorities treated us humanely, whereas I saw our treatment of them had been inhumane. We were surprised.
“That’s one reason I’ve decided to speak out. The other is that what really happened with Unit 731 had to be made public so that it will never be repeated. Our young people have to be told the truth.”



It is shocking to think that so many people were subjected to such harsh and torturous experiments like these.  Frostbite, pressure chambers, plague infested fleas and operations while subjects were still awake and aware of what was happening. Sounds like the basis for a horror movie if I have ever heard one. Unbelievable!
Unit 731 reminds me of a scaled down version of Auschwitz to some degree. None of the prisoners who entered survived, With 300,000 injuries and deaths coming directly  from the  experiments of unit 731 and numerous more coming from releasing the lab rats infected with the plague.  
The most shocking part of this story for me is the fact that nobody was charged with war crimes because the US and Japan made a deal for the info they obtained and that all the critical members of Unit 731 went on to find themselves in very powerful positions within the japanese community.  Very frightening and concerning to be honest.  Almost like it was a right of passage to get them to where they are.  
Our next experiment took place in Alabama in the early 1930 and lasted decades!  With no informed consent, hundreds of Black men with low incomes were used as test subjects — enticed with offerings such as free meals, health care, and burial stipends.   This is… 


The Tuskegee Experiment
(Transitional SFX)


Starting in 1932, 600 African American men from Macon County, Alabama were enlisted to partake in a scientific experiment on syphilis. The “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male,” was conducted by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) and involved blood tests, x-rays, spinal taps and autopsies of the subjects.
The goal was to “observe the natural history of untreated syphilis” in black populations. But the subjects were unaware of this and were simply told they were receiving treatment for bad blood. 
Actually, they received no treatment at all. 
Even after penicillin was discovered as a safe and reliable cure for syphilis, the majority of men did not receive it.
To really understand the heinous nature of the Tuskegee Experiment requires some societal context, a lot of history, and a realization of just how many times government agencies were given a chance to stop this human experimentation but didn’t.
In 1865, the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution formally ended the enslavement of black Americans. But by the early 20th century, the cultural and medical landscape of the U.S. was still built upon and inundated with racist concepts. 
Social Darwinism was rising, predicated on the survival of the fittest, and “scientific racism” (a pseudoscientific practice of using science to reinforce racial biases) was common. 
Many white people already thought themselves superior to blacks and science and medicine was all too happy to reinforce this hierarchy.
Before the ending of slavery, scientific racism was used to justify the African slave trade. 
Scientists argued that African men were uniquely fit for enslavement due to their physical strength and simple minds. They argued that slaves possessed primitive nervous systems, so they did not experience pain as white people did. 
Enslaved African Americans in the South were claimed to suffer from mental illness at rates lower than their free Northern counterparts (thereby proving that enslavement was good for them), and slaves who ran away were said to be suffering from their own mental illness known as drapetomania.
During and after the American Civil War, African Americans were argued to be a different species from white Americans, and mixed-race children were presumed prone to many medical issues. 
Doctors of the time testified that the emancipation of slaves had caused the “mental, moral and physical deterioration of the black population,” observing that “virtually free of disease as slaves, they were now overwhelmed by it.” Many believed that the African Americans were doomed to extinction, and arguments were made about their physiology being unsuited for the colder climates of America (thus they should be returned to Africa).
Scientific and medical authorities of the late 19th/early 20th centuries held extremely harmful pseudoscientific ideas specifically about the sex drives and genitals of African Americans. 
It was widely believed that, while the brains of African Americans were under-evolved, their genitals were over-developed. Black men were seen to have an intrinsic perversion for white women, and all African Americans were seen as inherently immoral, with insatiable sexual appetites.
This all matters because it was with these understandings of race, sexuality and health that researchers undertook the Tuskegee study. 
They believed, largely due to their fundamentally flawed scientific understanding of race, that black people were extremely prone to sexually transmitted infections (like syphilis).  Low birth rates and high miscarriage rates were universally blamed on STIs.
They also believed that all black people, regardless of their education, background, economic or personal situations, could not be convinced to get treatment for syphilis. Thus, the USPHS could justify the Tuskegee study, calling it a “study in nature” rather than an experiment, meant to simply observe the natural progression of syphilis within a community that wouldn’t seek treatment.
The USPHS set their study in Macon County due to estimates that 35% of its population was infected with syphilis.
 In 1932, the initial patients between the ages of 25 and 60 were recruited under the guise of receiving free medical care for “bad blood,” a casual term encompassing anemia, syphilis, fatigue and other conditions. 
Told that the treatment would last only six months, they received physical examinations, x-rays, spinal taps, and when they died, autopsies.


Researchers faced a lack of participants due to fears that the physical examinations were actually for the purpose of recruiting them to the military. 
To ease these fears, doctors began examining women and children as well. Men diagnosed with syphilis who were of the appropriate age were recruited for the study, while others received proper treatments for their syphilis (at the time these were commonly mercury- or arsenic-containing medicines).
In 1933, researchers decided to continue the study long term. They recruited 200+ control patients who did not have syphilis (simply switching them to the syphilis-positive group if at any time they developed it). They also began giving all patients ineffective medicines to further their belief that they were being treated.
As time progressed, however, patients began to stop attending their appointments. To incentivize them to remain a part of the study, the USPHS hired a nurse named Eunice Rivers to drive them to and from their appointments, provide them with hot meals and deliver their medicines, services especially valuable to subjects during the Great Depression.
 In an effort to ensure the autopsies of their test subjects, the researchers also began covering patient’s funeral expenses.
Multiple times throughout the experiment researchers actively worked to ensure that their subjects did not receive treatment for syphilis.
 In 1934 they provided doctors in Macon County with lists of their subjects and asked them not to treat them. In 1940 they did the same with the Alabama Health Department. In 1941 many of the men were drafted and had their syphilis uncovered by the entrance medical exam, so the researchers had the men removed from the army, rather than let their syphilis be treated.
It was in these moments that the Tuskegee study’s true nature became clear. 
Rather than simply observing and documenting the natural progression of syphilis in the community as had been planned, the researchers intervened: first by telling the participants that they were being treated (a lie), and then again by preventing their participants from seeking treatment that could save their lives. Thus, the original basis for the study--that the people of Macon County would likely not seek treatment and thus could be observed as their syphilis progressed--became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Henderson Act was passed in 1943, requiring tests and treatments for venereal diseases to be publicly funded, and by 1947,penicillin had become the standard treatment for syphilis, prompting the USPHS to open several Rapid Treatment Centers specifically to treat syphilis with penicillin. All the while they were actively preventing 399 men from receiving the same treatments.
By 1952, however, about 30% of the participants had received penicillin anyway, despite the researchers’ best efforts.
 Regardless, the USPHS argued that their participants wouldn’t seek penicillin or stick to the prescribed treatment plans.
 They claimed that their participants, all black men, were too “stoic” to visit a doctor. In truth these men thought they were already being treated, so why would they seek out further treatment?
The researchers’ tune changed again as time went on. 
In 1965, they argued that it was too late to give the subjects penicillin, as their syphilis had progressed too far for the drug to help. While a convenient justification for their continuation of the study, penicillin is (and was) recommended for all stages of syphilis and could have stopped the disease’s progression in the patients.
In 1947 the Nuremberg code was written, and in 1964 the World Health Organization published their Declaration of Helsinki. Both aimed to protect humans from experimentation, but despite this, the Centers for Disease Control (which had taken over from the USPHS in controlling the study) actively decided to continue the study as late as 1969.
It wasn’t until a whistleblower, Peter Buxtun, leaked information about the study to the New York Times and the paper published it on the front page on November 16th, 1972, that the Tuskegee study finally ended. 
By this time only 74 of the test subjects were still alive. 128 patients had died of syphilis or its complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had acquired congenital syphilis.
There was mass public outrage, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People launched a class action lawsuit against the USPHS. It settled the suit two years later for 10 million dollars and agreed to pay the medical treatments of all surviving participants and infected family members, the last of whom died in 2009.
Largely in response to the Tuskegee study, Congress passed the National Research Act in 1974, and the Office for Human Research Protections was established within the USPHS. Obtaining informed consent from all study participants became required for all research on humans, with this process overseen by Institutional Review Boards within academia and hospitals.
The Tuskegee study has had lasting effects on America. It’s estimated that the life expectancy of black men fell by up to 1.4 years when the study’s details came to light. 
Many also blame the study for impacting the willingness of black individuals to willingly participate in medical research today.
We know all about evil Nazis who experimented on prisoners. We condemn the scientists in Marvel movies who carry out tests on prisoners of war. But we’d do well to remember that America has also used its own people as lab rats. Yet to this day, no one has been prosecuted for their role in dooming 399 men to syphilis.



This is probably one of, if not the most notorious unethical experiment that the US has ever been a part of.  And believe it or not this isn't the only time that they did something like this.  
The US was part of another similar experiment on the people of Guatemala.  The US later went on to apologize for their part in the Guatemala  experiments decades later but what is an apology worth decades later  when the damage is already done?  
These men in the tuskegee experiments were enticed and tricked by the offer of a better life to some degree.  And all it took was some free food, free medical care (although in retrospect it wasn't very free at all) and a burial stipend.  All of which were very enticing offers to low income folks.
It enraged me to learn that these scientists and the government took steps to prevent these men from receiving true health care for their inflicted conditions.  
Making them believe they were receiving penicillin which would have cured them of their ailments.  And to know that not just these people but their families were also affected by these experiments.  On one hand it's almost unbelievable to think that The US could commit such atrocities.  And on the other hand it also kind of doesn't surprise me.  
As we have learned thus far, the 1930’s were not a very ethical time and the questionable research didnt stop here.  Our next experiment took place at the University of Iowa where researchers took orphaned children and bullied them about their  language and speaking skills to the point of psychological damage.  This is…
The Monster Study
In 1939, Mary Tudor walked into an orphanage in Iowa and selected 22 children for her “Monster Study”. 
She spent the next 6 months bullying and tormenting them until they began to stutter, withdraw from friendships, and nosedive academically. 
None of these children recovered emotionally, and they carried the low self-esteem and lack of confidence that Tudor had instilled in them, for the rest of their lives. At least this is what Jim Dyer, the journalist who broke the story, and countless psychology professors would have you believe. But is it the truth?
Although Mary Tudor conducted the study, it wasn’t her idea. 
She was just the grad student selected to carry out the methods designed by psychologist Wendell Johnson, who, himself, had a stutter. 
He often said, 
(VC:DP)
“I became a speech pathologist because I needed one.” 
His life’s mission was to find the cause of or a cure for stuttering, and it’s undeniable that his work changed many lives.
He first attended the University of Iowa as a student, with an extreme stutter that he’d had since he was five. He was nicknamed Jack, after the heavyweight boxer, Jack Johnson, because when kids teased him for his speech, he punched them.
When he arrived at the university, they were leaders in the field of speech pathology, and Johnson would firmly cement this position. 
His first contribution was to offer himself up for human experimentation. He endured having pebbles placed in his mouth, cold water baths, hypnotism, psychoanalysis, and various electrodes stuck to his body, all in the pursuit of finding a cause for his stutter. 
He even had his dominant right arm placed in a cast to help prove his professor’s theory that using the wrong hand caused a stammer as it created an imbalance in the hemispheres of the brain. Nothing worked.
By 1936, he started to doubt that there was a genetic cause for a stutter. He started interviewing parents with stuttering children and, in all cases, discovered that the kids had been labeled at a very young age. 
This led him to believe that perhaps “stuttering begins in the ear of the listener, not in the mouth of the child.”
Essentially, children don’t learn to speak perfectly straight away. 
We all repeat words or syllables occasionally and grow out of it. The problem comes when worried parents pick up on these small errors and start correcting and reprimanding them.
 This causes the kids to become nervous and self-conscious and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where they make more mistakes and develop a full-on stutter. Something Johnson feels he experienced as a child. Or, as he put it, The affliction is caused by the diagnosis.
This line of thinking led Johnson to formulate his “diagnosogenic theory.” 
This was the theory that diagnosing and therefore labeling a child as “a stutterer” based on a few developmentally normal stammers would make the problem worse.
 To test this, he designed an experiment to answer the following four questions:


Will “removing” the label “stutterer” from those who’ve been labeled have any effect on their speech fluency?
Will endorsement of the label “stutterer” previously applied to an individual have any effect on their speech fluency?
Will endorsement of the label “normal speaker” previously applied to an individual have any effect on their speech fluency?
And will labelling a person previously regarded as a normal speaker a “stutterer” have any effect on their speech fluency?To carry this out, he needed children, some who’d been labeled as “stutterers” and some without any speech issues. 
But where would he find the kids? Clearly, no parent would allow him to attempt to induce a stammer in their children, and he couldn’t use adults as his theory was based on labeling at a young age. 
So, he did what many scientists in the 30s did and turned to institutions that housed the vulnerable and undefended. In this case, the Soldiers and Sailors Orphan’s Home in Davenport, Iowa. 
Professor Franklin Silverman, who studied under Johnson, would later describe this by saying,“They used that orphanage as a laboratory rat colony.”
Now that Johnson had access to 256 orphaned children, the next step was to assign a graduate student to conduct the study. He chose Mary Tudor, a 23-year-old, known for her ability to develop a rapport with kids.
Her first task was to visit the orphanage and select the ones who’d take part in the study. 
22 were chosen, 10 from those whose teachers had identified them as having a stutter, and 12 from the children who had no issues with their speech. Then they were split into four groups, some experimental and some control.
Once Tudor had her sample, the experiment could begin. 
This involved 6 months of weekly interviews where each child would read aloud or retell a story from memory, while Tudor would count their word repetitions, record their fluency, and comment on their speech. 
The children and teachers thought they were receiving speech therapy, but the reality was that Tudor was following a script designed to either remove or induce a stutter. The lucky ones were in the control group.
62 years later, one of the children, Donna Hastings, would say, “There but for the grace of God, I could have been placed in an experimental group. It could have been my life that was destroyed.”
The scripts Tudor used differed by group.
Group IA, five children with established stutters, received positive reinforcement and the following statements:  
“Many children have this same kind of trouble that you seem to be having. But it really isn’t trouble; it’s just a certain stage that children go through. Pay no attention to it, and soon you’ll find that you will be speaking very freely and well.”
Their teachers and matrons were also told to ignore repetitions, have them read aloud frequently, and should under no circumstance refer to them as a “stutterer”.
Group IIB, 6 children with no speech issues, acted as the control group and were mostly just told that they were great speakers. 
Then came group IB, five children with a stutter who received negative reinforcement and lots of questions that frequently labeled them as “stutterers.” 
For example, “How long have you stuttered? When did you begin to stutter? What happened that caused you to stutter?” Obviously, this wasn’t good for the children, but unfortunately, it also wasn’t very different to the way parents and teachers treated children with a stutter at that time.
The real issues came with group IIA. These were the children with no speech issues who would be wrongfully informed that they had a stutter and criticized for it. Here’s an example of what they were told:
“The staff has come to the conclusion that you have a great deal of trouble with your speech. The type of interruptions which you have are very undesirable. You must try to stop yourself immediately. Don’t ever speak unless you can do it right.”
Their teachers were told, “Watch their speech all of the time very carefully and stop them when they have interruptions; Don’t allow them to speak unless they can say it right.”
So what did this look like for group IIA in practice?
Let’s take the case of Norma Pugh. She was just 5 years old, the youngest in the study, and placed in group IIA. 
She did not have a stutter, but it was Tudor’s job to convince her that she did. Norma was asked to tell the story of the three bears and when she accidentally said “she” three times, Tudor stopped her and told her that she had a stutter. 
She did this with every repeated word and Norma started to gasp and clamp her hand over her mouth each time.
The next time they met, Norma almost refused to speak. When forced, she’d say one word at a time, slowly. Tudor asked her what she was afraid of and Norma replied, “Afraid I might stutter.” 
At this point, Tudor noted, “She reacted to every repetition by stopping and hanging her head. She looked down practically all of the time. She seemed inhibited and she didn’t smile.” 
Remember this was a five year old girl.
After four months of visits, Norma’s speech became short and jerky.  Her fluency had dropped, and her number of interruptions had increased.
The nine-year-old, Elizabeth Ostert, also started refusing to speak. In one meeting Tudor asked her“You’re afraid of your stutter aren’t you?” and Elizabeth just nodded her head.
Another subject, Clarence Fifer, was 11 years old and the stutter Tudor gave him caused problems with his friends. 
He told her that when he stuttered the other boys noticed and laughed. She asked him what he did about it, and he responded that he’d walk away and feel pretty bad.
12-year-old, Phillip Spieker, became withdrawn and his speech more jerky, using just one word at a time. 
His teacher commented that, “He had gone down terribly in his school work and that in discussion she just couldn’t force anything out of him.“
15-year-old Mary Korlaske also struggled socially during the experiment. 


Tudor asked her about her best friend, Dolly,
“Does she know you stutter?”
“No.” replied Mary.
“Why not?”
“I hardly ever talk to her.” she said.
Another 15-year-old, Hazel Potter, suffered even more striking effects from the study. 
Tudor noted
“During the experimental period she developed mannerisms characteristic of some stutterers, such as snapping her fingers to get a word out… and occasionally she presented the phenomenon of writing the same word two or three times in her compositions.”
Every single child was fully convinced they had a stutter, repeated multiple words during speech, and was extremely ashamed of the fact. 
Tudor often commented that they’d sink in their chairs, their faces would turn red, and they’d often refuse to speak altogether.
So, what were the effects of this cruel experiment on the children? Well, 5 out of 6 of group IIA increased the number of interruptions in their speech; their rate of speaking decreased; and so did the length of their responses. 
More worryingly, all of them underwent behavioral changes. They became shy, less talkative, embarrassed by their speech, and more self-conscious.
For reference, five out of six children who stuttered and received negative reinforcement also deteriorated in their speech. In contrast, all but one of the children in the control groups improved.
This was, of course, exactly what Johnson was hoping to see, but it was emotionally taxing for Tudor, who was finding it increasingly difficult to remain detached.
She later recalled, “I didn’t like what I was doing to those children. It was a hard, terrible thing. Today, I probably would have challenged it. Back then you did what you were told.”
After the experiment ended, she revisited the children three times to inform them that their stutters had been cured and they no longer needed to worry. 


Unfortunately, she could see the damage she’d done, and she wrote a letter to Johnson, which read, “I didn’t find them as free from the effects of the therapy I had inflicted upon them last year as I had hoped to.  I believe that in time they…will recover, but we certainly made a definite impression on them.”
Upon the study's completion, Tudor’s thesis, “An experimental study of the effect of evaluative labeling of speech fluency,” was shelved and largely forgotten. 
The only reference Johnson made to it was in a few of his lectures in the 1940s. It was then that his experiment earned the nickname “The Monster Study,” as his students questioned the ethics of the work.
Some claim that the reason that Johnson kept it hidden was for fear that it would tarnish his reputation and potentially draw comparisons to the human experiments of the Nazis. 
However, it’s more likely that he realized the methods weren’t sound, the sample size was too small, and most masters theses went largely unread anyway.
So, as the children never knew they’d been experimented on, it seemed likely that the Monster study would be forgotten. 
That was until Jim Dyer caught wind of the experiment and decided to investigate it for the San Jose Mercury News.
He was a journalism student at the University of Iowa but posed as a psychology student to gain access to the names of the children in Tudor’s Thesis from the Iowa State archives. 
This allowed him to track down and interview each of the victims, who by then were all in their 70s.
Each reacted with shock and anger, but none more so than Mary Korslake, whom Dyer apparently found living as a recluse in a retirement home. 
According to Dyer’s original article entitled “Ethics and Orphans: The Monster Study,” Mary was so outraged to find out that she’d been treated as a guinea pig that she decided to write to Tudor, addressing her letter and package to “The Monster.” 
Dyer must’ve hand-delivered it to Tudor as he was there to record her reaction. “Oh dear,” she said, reading the name on the parcel, “I hope it isn’t a bomb.”
By this time, Tudor was 84 years old, had long retired, and did speak with regret about the study: “That was the pitiful part—that I got them to trust me and then I did this horrible thing to them.”
Upon the publication of Dyer’s article in June 2001, people were rightly outraged. Unlike in 1939, ethics were now a big thing amongst the scientific community, and no one could argue that using institutionalized children, who lacked protection or a choice in the matter, was morally acceptable.
The outcome of this was a lawsuit, brought by the children of group IIA against the State of Iowa.
 They initially sought compensation of $13.5 million in damages, claiming that they’d suffered stutters, damaged confidence, and a fear of speaking both socially and professionally. 
This had damaged their chances to succeed in school, their careers, and their personal lives.
Due to the advanced age of the three surviving claimants, they ended up settling for just $1.2 million. 


A spokesman for the University of Iowa released the statement, “This is a study that should never be considered defensible in any era. In no way would I ever think of defending this study. In no way. It’s more than unfortunate.”
While no one could argue that the study was morally wrong and that the children deserved compensation, there is a bit more to the story that’s not often reported.
Iowa settled as Mary’s words reported by Dyer were heart-wrenching. 
She wrote to Tudor, “I could have been a scientist, archaeologist, or even president. Instead, I became a pityful stutterer. The kids made fun of me, my grades fell off, I felt stupid. Clear into my adulthood, I still want to avoid people to this day.”. 
However, the court documents released after the trial tell a different story. 
Mary admitted in her deposition that she wrote the letter at Dyer’s urging and that it was largely false. She never called Tudor a monster or believed she was one, and she even sent her friendly Christmas cards.
 Dyer had waxed poetically about how Tudor had reminded Mary of her mother, and how she’d hoped to have been adopted by her. 
But Mary was never up for adoption. Staff at her retirement home had been asked to provide a letter stating Mary was living as a recluse, but they refused on the grounds that it would be false.
It wasn’t just the lawyers who found holes in Dyer’s story either. Speech research scientists Nicoline Ambrose and Ehud Yairi investigated the study in more depth and noted a few things. 
Firstly, each child was assessed by five impartial judges at the end of the study, and none of group IIA had actually developed a stutter, as Dyer had claimed. 
In fact, depositions in the trial revealed multiple doctors’ notes and medical assessments for each IIA subject which made no mention of any speech or social difficulties and, in some cases, assessed them to be good.
Secondly, they proposed that blaming the social anxiety of the children on a 6-month study, with relatively little contact was a stretch. 
Tudor herself had noted that although she asked the teachers to cooperate, only one of them did, so the children didn’t suffer constant fluency reminders, just the occasional meetings. 


In Dyer’s own article, he described how Mary ran away from the orphanage to find her mother, who promptly called the police and had her taken back. Ambrose suggested this was likely to have had a greater effect on Mary than a few months of speech therapy, where she was pulled up for repeating words.
Ultimately, Dyer lost his job at the Mercury, but not for fabricating the majority of his story. Ironically, he was brought down by ethics. 
As it turns out, posing as a grad student in order to access the protected names of children is a journalistic no-no.
In the end, none of the people involved in the Monster study came out of it particularly well. 
The subjects lied and embellished the truth to gain larger settlements, the journalist lied to write a better story, the scientists designed and conducted a study that would be hugely unethical by today’s standards, and countless news reporters and even psychology professors have retold Dyer’s version of events because it’s just more exciting than the truth. 
A horrible study was done that hurt, upset and confused several defenseless children in an orphanage, but fortunately, it had no lasting effects on their speech. Either way, I think everyone can agree it’s a good thing we don’t experiment on vulnerable children anymore.



Man, the 30’s were a fucked up time to be a black man, poor, a prisoner of war or even a little orphan kid like we see here. Seems to me that nobody was left off the table when it came to research subjects.  Except for maybe the rich and powerful.   
I don't understand how these researchers were cold enough to treat anyone like this, let alone young orphan kids.  Imagine growing up in an orphanage insecure about yourself, those around you and your situation just to eventually go through this?  Scientists and researchers back in these times had to have been a special kind of detached from emotions and life to pull this level of manipulative deceitfulness.  
It is astounding that these experiments did not cause serious lifelong conditions for these poor  young defenseless unconsenting kids.


Our next experiment goes once again into the hands of the United States Government where researching interrogation methods, hypnosis and mind control were their main focus.  This is…
Project Artichoke

(Transition SFX)
Brainwashing and mind-controlling can be used for good and bad purposes, but both are ultimately unethical. 
Several groups and organizations use many forms of brainwashing and mind-controlling such as coercion, prejudice, psychoactive drugs, and hypnotism on other people to believe a particular unethical idea. 
They are even used in the enslavement of other people based on molding their actions and morals, turning them into puppets.
You might be glad that something like “Project Artichoke” doesn’t exist any longer because it involves such kinds of practice.
“Project ARTICHOKE” is an unethical but official “mind control” program from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that gathered information and researched interrogation methods. It arose from a previous project, “Project BLUEBIRD,” on August 20, 1951.
“Project ARTICHOKE” was similar to “Project BLUEBIRD,” in the sense that it used hypnosis and forced administering of drugs such as LSD in controlling the minds of human subjects. 
The name “Project ARTICHOKE” also known as “Operation Artichoke”, was CIA’s code name for this project, which was operated by the CIA’s Office of Scientific Intelligence.
Joining the CIA in Project ARTICHOKE were the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, and the FBI as formal partners. The FBI refused to participate in the previous Project BLUEBIRD.
The officials asked themselves: “Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self-preservation?” 
The CIA was seeking to establish control over what was perceived as “weaker” and “less intelligent” sectors of society, or for potential defectors, agents, refugees, prisoners of war, and many others.
Like many other projects that preceded it, Project ARTICHOKE aimed to research interrogation methods. But what made this project different is that it was used or perused whether a person involuntarily made to carry out an assassination or an attempted assassination. 
It also studied hypnosis, forced morphine addiction and subsequent withdrawal, the use of chemicals, most notably LSD, and total isolation to cause amnesia and other vulnerable conditions in human subjects.
What’s more curious about Project ARTICHOKE, and all other projects that went before and came after, is that it was official and confidential to the point that even presidents officially asked forgiveness regarding the project. But the average Joe did not know about them.
One experiment attempted to see whether it was possible to create a “Manchurian Candidate.” 
The Manchurian Candidate is a 1959 political thriller novel written by Richard Condon, which tells about a soldier who has been placed into a hypnotic state by the Communist forces and returns home as their unwitting assassin. It was made into a film in 1962.
Five years prior to that, the CIA seriously pondered the possibility. 
Then, in a January 22, 1954 report, it asked the question, “Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self-preservation?”
Later, the document stipulated that this assassination attempt would be against “a prominent [redacted] politician or if necessary, an American official. After the “American official,” a hand-written asterisk was put over it. At the end of the document, the words “stimulated only” were hand-written.
The memo states that the CIA operatives would put this theory into test on a foreign national (his country of origin redacted) who was once an Agency asset, but had stopped cooperating since.
At first, the agents used a variety of drugs such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, heroin, mescaline and peyote, but in the end they saw LSD as the most effective and promising drug.
After the experiment, the subjects were clouded with amnesia, which resulted in faulty and vague memories of the experience. By 1952, the agents, unbeknownst to them, had been given LSD in increasing amounts to find out the drug’s effects on unsuspecting people.
They once conducted an experiment where the subject was an unidentified Caucasian (most likely American) girl between the ages of eight and ten years old. 
The subject underwent six months of treatment using LSD, electroshock and sensory deprivation. Subsequently, the subject’s memory was erased, and her brain’s condition became that of a newborn.
Apart from the in-house operations, Project ARTICHOKE also conducted overseas operations, with locations in Europe, Japan, Southeast Asia, and the Philippines. 


Teams were assembled to oversee and manage these operations and were instructed to do “operational experiments utilizing aliens as subjects” in their overseas bases.


It's instances like this that make me weary of the US government or any government for that matter.  It's scary to think that a government could have found a way to make unknowing citizens their own personal weapons of mass destruction.  Make people do anything at their beckoning call.  

Like a sleeper agent ready to do the unthinkable at the sound of a tone.  Scary to think about really.  There is no circumstance that I could forsee that this scenario would ever end up being for the good of humanity.  But it sure would be a good way to keep the public in fear and obedient.  
Our next story follows a researcher into the tearoom trade asking why men seek impersonal sexual gratification with complete strangers.  This is…



Laud Humphreys and the Tearoom Sex Study(Transition SFX)
Laud Humphreys, a sociologist, recognized that the public and the law-enforcement authorities hold highly simplistic stereotyped beliefs about men who commit impersonal sexual acts with one another in public restrooms.
 "Tearoom sex," as fellatio in public restrooms is called, accounts for the majority of homosexual arrests in the United States. 
Humphreys decided that it would be of considerable social importance for society to gain a more objective understanding of who these men are and what motivates them to seek quick, impersonal sexual gratification.
For his Ph.D. dissertation at Washington University, Humphreys set out to answer this question by means of participant observation and structured interview. 
He stationed himself in "tearooms" and offered to serve as "watchqueen" which is the individual who keeps watch and coughs when a police car stops nearby or a stranger approaches. He played that role faithfully while observing hundreds of acts of fellatio. 
He was able to gain the confidence of some of the men he observed, disclosed his role as a scientist, and persuaded them to tell him about the rest of their lives and about their motives. 
Those who were willing to talk openly with him tended to be among the better-educated members of the "tearoom trade." 
To avoid bias, Humphreys secretly followed some of the other men he observed and recorded the license numbers of their cars.  A year later and carefully disguised, Humphreys appeared at their homes claiming to be a health-service interviewer and interviewed them about their marital status, race, job, and so on.
Humphreys' findings destroy many stereotypes. 
Fifty-four percent of his subjects were married and living with their wives, and superficial analysis would suggest that they were commendable citizens who had commendable marriages. 
Thirty-eight percent of Humphreys' subjects clearly were neither bisexual nor homosexual. 
They were men whose marriages were marked with tension; most of the 38 percent were Catholic or their wives were, and since the birth of their last child conjugal relations had been rare. 
Their alternative source of sex had to be quick, inexpensive, and impersonal. 
It could not entail any kind of involvement that would threaten their already shaky marriage and jeopardize their most important asset - their standing as father of their children. 
They wanted only some form of orgasm-producing action that was less lonely than masturbation and less involving than a love relationship. 
Of the other 62 percent of Humphreys' subjects, 24 percent were clearly bisexual, happily married, well educated, economically quite successful, and exemplary members of their community. 
Another 24 percent were single and were covert homosexuals. Only 14 percent of Humphreys' subjects corresponded to society's stereotype of homosexuality. That is, only 14 percent were members of the gay community and were interested in primarily homosexual relationships (Humphreys, 1970).
Informal inquiry (Knerr, 1970) indicated that Humphreys' research has helped persuade police departments to stop using their resources on arrest for this victimless crime. Many would count this as a social benefit.
There were also social costs. 
The research occurred in the mid 1960s before institutional review boards were in existence. The dissertation proposal was reviewed only by Humphreys' Ph.D. committee. 
Only after the research had been completed did the other members of the Sociology Department learn of it. 
A furor arose when some of those other members of the department objected that Humphreys' research had unethically invaded the privacy and threatened the social standing of the subjects, and petitioned the president of Washington University to revoke Humphreys' Ph.D. degree. 
The turmoil resulted in numerous other unfortunate events, including a fist fight among faculty members and the exodus of about half of the department members to positions at other universities.
There was considerable public outrage as well. 
Journalist Nicholas von Hoffman, who was given some details of the case by one of the angered members of the Sociology Department, wrote an article about Humphreys' research and offered the following condemnation of social scientists: 
(VC:deep)
"We're so preoccupied with defending our privacy against insurance investigators, dope sleuths, counterespionage men, divorce detectives and credit checkers, that we overlook the social scientists behind the hunting blinds who're also peeping into what we thought were our most private and secret lives. 
But there they are, studying us, taking notes, getting to know us, as indifferent as everybody else is to the feeling that to be a complete human involves having an aspect of ourselves that's unknown." 




The Washington/Oregon Testicular Radiation Experiments
In 1963, prior to flights into space, scientists were concerned about the effect of space radiation on astronauts’ testicles. They also were concerned about radiated gonads of workers at America’s atomic energy plants. So, they conducted experiments designed to test the effects of massive radiation on prisoners’ testicles without any regard for the consequences for the test human subjects.
In an ugly exercise of rudimentary science that is only now coming to a close, a captive group of human guinea pigs — inmates of Washington and Oregon prisons — were lured into a literal balls-out effort to answer those questions.
 Enticed with cash and suggestions that participating could help win them parole, and lulled by official assurances that the tests were safe, dozens of prisoners between 1963 and 1973 lined up, stripped down and offered their genitalia to what science called “reproductive radiation tests. . . Dozens of prisoners had their testicles bombarded with radiation in the name of science back in the ’60s and ’70s. 
Until 1973, Dr. C. Alvin Paulsen (University of Washington) who was under a private contract with the AEC, conducted “Reproductive Radiation Tests” on 63 prison inmates at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla. He used X-rays on the testicles of 64 prisoners — later reports indicated the number of prisoners was 131 — to find the dose that would make them sterile.


His former mentor, Dr. Carl Heller, simultaneously conducted similar experiments on 67 inmates at the Oregon State Penitentiary sponsored by the Pacific Northwest Research Foundation of Seattle. 
These experiments were also funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The inmates agreed to participate in the experiments having been lured with cash and the suggestion of parole — $5 a month and $100 when they receive a vasectomy at the end of the trial. Most of the subjects were exposed to over 400 rads of radiation (the equivalent of 2,400 chest x-rays) in 10 minute intervals. The risks of radiation had not been disclosed to the incarcerated subjects. Mother Jones (2000) reported that declassified government documents show that NASA officials and some unnamed astronauts even sat in on Heller’s meetings.    


today, some of the former inmates say they were unaware of the long-term risks.
The experiments have drawn some attention in the past, in a lawsuit by 20 former prisoners in 1976 and in a 1986 congressional study. But detailed information about the experiments was buried until recently in classified documents and confidential papers. This report is based on interviews with surviving participants, prison officials and medical researchers, as well as federal records.
On Monday, in an attempt to shed further light on the prisoner studies, the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, appointed by the White House, is scheduled to hold a field hearing in Spokane, Wash. The 14-member committee, appointed after Energy Secretary Hazel R. O'Leary brought the issue of federal radiation tests on humans to national attention last year, is charged with determining whether financial compensation, medical tests or other kinds of follow-up should be given to participants.
Of the hundreds of federally sponsored Cold War research projects involving deliberate human exposure to radiation, including a series involving retarded children in Boston and another using aborted fetuses in Chicago, the prisoner studies stand out as some of the most shocking. The testicles are especially sensitive to radiation damage because they contain rapidly dividing cells that produce sperm.
Damage to chromosomes in the cells of a man's testicles can cause infertility, raise the risk of testicular cancer and increase the chances his children will have birth defects.
Using an X-ray device, researchers beamed varying doses of radiation on the prisoners' testicles. They later took biopsies to determine the effect of the irradiation. An article published in a scientific journal by researchers who conducted the tests said some of the prisoners were exposed to as much as 640 rads, a potentially fatal amount if spread over the whole body.
Bibeau's dose was 18 1/2 rads; an average modern X-ray ranges between 0.1 and 1 rad.
The Washington state experiments were halted in 1970, and the Oregon experiments ended in 1973. As details have emerged, a handful of surviving participants have come forward with a list of medical problems, including prostate cancer, loss of vision and vascular diseases, some of which may have resulted from the experiments.
Phillip King, 54, who took part in the tests in 1969 as a state prison inmate in Salem, Ore., complains of groin pains so severe he sometimes has trouble sitting down. Robert Garrison, 54, another former Oregon inmate who recalls repeated radiation exposures over several weeks in the late 1960s, said he has had persistent rashes and a painful lump on his testicles. Another participant reported one of his testicles became attached to his scrotum as a result of one of the biopsies.
The participants also express anger about their use as guinea pigs and the lack of adequate medical follow-up.
"We can be blamed for being duped, but nobody ever sat us down and explained what the tests were all about and what the complications were," Garrison said. "But worst of all is the deceit that we've been subjected to afterwards. I can't even get a doctor to diagnose my problems, let alone give me treatment for them. I shouldn't have to scream to get some kind of results. I'm a human being too."
"I took part in the tests and now I'm in a lot of pain," said King, who works at odd jobs in Portland. "I don't know what I'm owed, but I think I'm owed something."
Some of the prisoners have also experienced psychological problems, said Catherine Knox, director of health services for Oregon's Department of Correction. "Apparently, no one thought about the effect it would have on prisoners to have their testicles irradiated," she said. As a result, "some have had questions about their sexual orientation," she added.
Most of the former prisoners interviewed have worked to establish new lives and to steer clear of further trouble with the law. Garrison, originally jailed for armed assault, is a grandfather who runs his home-maintenance business.
They gave various reasons for volunteering for the experiments. For Hill, it was a chance to earn extra cash.
Besides the $5-a-month stipend, participants received extra cash for biopsies and for undergoing a vasectomy, recommended by researchers to prevent them from having children because of the risk of birth defects from their radiation exposure.
For Bibeau, a former soldier, it was a chance to perform a patriotic duty. "I was just told that it was a way to serve my country even though I was in prison," he said. "And I bought it."
The experiments involving prisoners in radiation tests -- and other research using mental patients, members of racial minorities, pregnant women and other vulnerable subgroups of the American population -- have raised questions about the ethical standards used by researchers at the time.
"A reasonable person looking at the experiments now would conclude that they were ethically wrong," said John Fletcher, a professor of biomedical ethics at the the University of Virginia Medical School. "At that time, however, the ethos among researchers was different," Fletcher said. "It was nationalistic, and well-funded, and there wasn't much scrutiny."
"In order to justify using prisoners, the researchers would have had to make a determination that they are somehow less than human or less important than the general population," said Dianne Bartels, acting director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Minnesota.


 Fletcher pointed out that until the mid-1960s, few rules restricted medical researchers from designing experiments. And it was considered acceptable to subject prisoners, mental patients or members of minority groups to risks that were not imposed on the general population.
Since 1966, all National Institutes of Health-sponsored research projects must be approved in advance by an independent review board.
 Rules passed in 1978 bar use of prisoners in any medical experiments that do not benefit them. Because prisoners are a captive population, they are not regarded as being in a position to give informed consent. Fletcher, who feels the experiments were wrong even at the time, said, "In today's world, they would not be possible." Convicted of killing a man who tried to molest him in 1963, Bibeau was sentenced to 12 years in an Oregon state prison. In 1964, a fellow prisoner encouraged him to join the radiation program.
Carl G. Heller, a medical researcher at the Pacific Northwest Research Foundation in Seattle, who was one of the developers of the birth control pill, began the radiation program in Oregon in the early 1960s. 
The brother of Walter W. Heller, top economic adviser to President John F. Kennedy, Heller was well-known in the U.S. medical community. He died in 1982. C. Alvin Paulsen, a researcher at the University of Washington, oversaw parallel experiments in Washington.
More than three decades after his participation, Bibeau, 52, now a designer and draftsman living in Portland, recalls the experiments in detail. He remembers Heller for his persuasive manner and wing-tipped shoes. He recollects the $5-a-month stipend he received was spent on cigarettes, razors and candy. Above all, Bibeau recounts in detail the burning sensation he felt in his groin after receiving the radiation. "It was warm down there," he said, "like I had been laying out in the sun for too long."
Bibeau and other participants were asked to provide urine and semen samples to the researchers. After the radiation exposure, the subjects were also subjected to regular biopsies.
Bibeau recalls Heller warned him the experiments could result in "a burning feeling" for a couple of days and told him it was possible there might be "chromosomal complications." Bibeau had a vasectomy on Heller's recommendation. When he eventually married and wanted children, his wife underwent artificial insemination. "To this day I have no idea what chromosomal complications are," Bibeau said. "How can you have informed consent if you don't know what's happening to you?"
In a 1976 deposition for a lawsuit brought by some Oregon inmates who took part in the experiments, Heller testified he "discussed the possibility of radiation burn to the skin of the scrotum, and ... discussed the probability of chromosomal alterations and therefore, the vasectomy."
A total of about $6,000 was distributed to prisoners in settling the suit.
About half the 131 participants have died, Knox said. A handful are still imprisoned at both participating institutions. In 1987, the Oregon legislature passed a statute to provide follow-up tests to all survivors of Heller's experiments.
James Ruttenber, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado Medical School, designed a protocol for the follow-up work. Ten participants have received checkups, Knox said, but the program has failed to receive funding.
"Time is running out for participants to receive medical attention," Ruttenber said. "For some it may already be too late."
Outro: 
Well my friends, thats it for todays episode.  Please don't forget to subscribe and leave a review, it really does help the show grow and evolve.  Also please go check out my linktree/ red tide studio where you can find my patreon page where I post photos related to our stories to add an extra layer of depth to our discussions.  All my content is free, but if you would like you can donate to the show there as well.  
Also, if you are into UFology, Criptids & conspiracies be sure to go check out the podcast UFO…No.  Ben Austin is always taking  unique subjects and breaking them down for you to help you decide whether these tales have any truth to them or if they are completely bogus.  He is a blast to listen to and I highly recommend checking him out.  You can find him anywhere you get your podcasts.  
(Stacy’s Podcast too)
Well thats all I have for you today my friends,  Stay curious & until next time.
(Outro Music)