Peter Dale Scott: Parallels Between JFK and 9/11

FBI’s chillingly predictable formula

Peter Dale Scott, noted professor, author and critic of US policy, gives a talk to JFK researchers on insights he has gained by studying both the JFK assassination and 9/11. He notes that there are similarities in both cases, such as the impossibly swift identification of both Lee Harvey Oswald and the 9/11 hijackers by the FBI.

If you want more proof that there were shady goings-on in our government regarding both JFK’s assassination and 9/11, this is a must-watch.

Former OPCW official: no conclusive proof of Russian complicity in Salisbury attack

  • Nerve agent found in Salisbury does not conclusively prove Russian complicity
  • Russia’s denial of a Novichok programme is true but misleading — a secret nerve agent programme to create Novichok-type agents was run under a different name
  • Western states have extensively researched and synthesized the Novichok class of agents
  • Novichok was most recently synthesized by Iran, details of which were provided to the OPCW
  • Russian Novichok stockpiles were destroyed in the 1990s, but it is theoretically possible that some capability still exists, though no evidence for this is available

The US and its European allies have coordinated the largest collective expulsion of Russian diplomats in history. Russia has promised to retaliate in kind. Yet despite the sense of certainty around Russian culpability in the Salisbury incident, questions remain around the state of the available evidence.

As contradictory narratives proliferate amidst conflicting Western and Russian government statements and media reports, a clearer picture of the secret history of the nerve agent used in the Salisbury poisonings is emerging.

In an exclusive interview with INSURGE, a former senior official at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) from 1993 to 2006, Dr Ralf Trapp, said that at this stage there is no conclusive evidence that Russia was the source of the nerve agent used in Salisbury. He pointed to compelling evidence that Russia did run a secret research programme to create Novichok-type nerve agents — and strongly criticised Russia’s denials of that programme. While justifying grounds for suspicion, there is as yet no decisive proof that Russia retained such a Novichok programme or capability today, he said….

It goes without saying that the west is equally likely to have secret chemical weapons programs to go along with its biological weapons programs.

But common sense doesn’t count for much when an empire wants to go to war.

How the Empire’s Child Abusers Censored Revolutionary Research into Causes of Violence

It would be naive to think this one person (Kretchmer) was solely responsible for this monumental coverup.   It received sufficient publicity inside and outside the research establishment that it could not have been suppressed without the concerted efforts of key people in high places, especially in the media (i.e. the CIA ).   The agenda was and is social destabilization for fun and profit.   Disaster capitalism is just good business.  Chaos in the streets means a stable cash flow to centralized power, as people seek safety.   Social control 101.  (  ) To follow the money, look to the luciferian central banking cabal.   ( )

This first article barely skims the surface of the discoveries made under this program.   This is civilization-transforming-level stuff.   A total tragedy.



Vol. VII, No. 20

October 7, 1980

A WASHINGTON “WHISTLEBLOWER” charges the National Institute of Child Health and Human DeVelopment’s chief is deliberately thwarting promising research into the causes of violence. A Special Report begins on page 3…


DR. JAMES W. PRESCOTT, a behavioral scientist. is the latest career government employee to discover. as he puts it, that being a Washington “whistleblower” doesn’t pay. “Like a lot of others, they got me, too,” he says.

Prescott, 46, was fired from his $40.000-a—year position as health science administrator with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development NICHD on April ll. an action he is appealing. The man who fired him is Dr. Norman Kretchmer, director of the institute since 1974 and a pediatrician by profession. The stated reason for removing Prescott was: to “promote the efficiency of the service.” But Prescott said the real reason that he was dismissed was “in reprisal” for having filed a series of grievances against Kretchmer.

One of Prescott’s principal grievances is that Kretchmer allegedly “obstructed” research into promising new areas that might yield clues to the developmental origins of violence and child abuse. The obstruction, according to actions filed by Prescott, took a variety of forms. He says Kretchmer on one occasion kept him from meeting with officials of the federal Bureau of Prisons, at their invitation, to discuss a research project involving violence-prone inmates. At other times, Prescott charges Kretchmer was responsible for “numerous rejections, delays, and further review requirements” placed on contracts he was involved with and this was done out of “personal hostility.”

Prescott was employed at the NICHD Human Learning and Behavior Branch. Over the past 15 years, he has concentrated On a number of child abuse and violence related projects that have been awarded to leading researchers in the field and has frequently spoken and written on the subject himself. A trained psychologist (he obtained his Ph.D. at McGill University in 1964). Prescott says he has been chiefly responsible for mapping his agency’s developmental behavior biology program and, hence, was dismayed when Kretchmer sent him a memo in January 1979 that appeared to kill it. This memo stated that developmental origins of violence, including child abuse, was “outside the scope of NICHD responsibilities.” Other memos followed in May. 1979 instructing Prescott to “please drop” the assignment of a proposed child abuse research project jointly to NICHD and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMHJ.

The latter memo emphasized that child abuse “does not appear anywhere in NICHD guidelines” and added that it was outside the institute’s “mission area.” A second memo said the National Institutes of Health Division of Research Grants has been requested to “make no further assign— ments to NICHD in child abuse” and instructed Prescott “not to program grant applications or contract proposals in this area.” It was on the basis of these memos that Prescott decided to go public and inform people that he considered this a “major public health research policy decision” on Kretchmer’s part . During July and August Prescott dispatched — on NICHD stationery — letters to several professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association, warning them that Kretchmer’s decision “removes basic research support” from the violence and child abuse areas. When the APA and others reacted to the letters, calling upon Kretchmer to reverse his “decision.” Kretchmer hauled Prescott on the carpet, threatening him with disciplinary action for having used official stationery for expressing “personal opinions” about government policy. This was used as one of the reasons for Prescott’s dismissal. When Child Protection Report asked Kretchmer last year about the policy change, he declared there had been none.


“We were never in child abuse or domestic violence research. We don’t do any pathology -~ that’s the mission of NIMH.” (CPR 9/6/79) This statement has been flatly refuted by Dr. John Money, professor of medical pathology at Johns Hopkins University and Hospital. In a letter dated July 30, 1980 to a Merit Systems Protection hearing examiner on Prescott’s case. Money says he first identified the syndrome of abuse dwarfism in 1968 with a NICHD grant and has continued to study it since then with NICHD funds. The syndrome, he discovered. “has its origins in pathological abuse and neglect in infancy.” Abuse and neglect induce brain pituitary changes which impair statural and intellectual growth and delay puberty. His research. Money said, had opened the way to a method of cure.

NICHD’s own records show that it has been spending about $2 million annually over the past several years on child abuse research — failure-to-thrive, mental retardation related to abuse. and the effects of prematurity and malnutrition. Kretchmer has resorted to semantics to explain this work. In a letter dated Feb. 19, 1980 to Sen. Alan Cranston {D-Calif.) Betsy H. Pickett. Kretchmer’s deputy, says “this institute has not discontinued support for studies related to child abuse and neglect. but continues its long-standing program of support for basic behavioral and social sciences studies that relate to many aspects of human develoPment.“ But at another point the letter states “The NICHD has never supported a program of research on child abuse and neglect.“ How could it “not discontinue,” yet nevsr have supported such a program? Prescott believes the answer is that the claim of no program was strictly aimed at him — part of what he calls a “personal vendetta“ by Kretchmer that also includes a number of official reprimands for having written an article about child abuse for Hustler in 1977 and making outside Speaking engagements about the problem of violence.

“In retrospect what bothers me the most about all this,“ Prescott says, “is that it has been made to look like just a personal feud. The point I’m trying to draw attention to is this: why aren’t the origins of violence a cancern of a government institute devoted to research into human development? The abnormal is as much a part of development as the normal. And besides. the NIMH is not investigating the origins of violence, nor is any other agency.“


The ironic thing to him is that a lot of basic work that has been done over the years producing clues to abnormal behavior is just approaching the stage where there could be some payoffs. Prescott cites research on the electrical brain ane patterns of monkeys raised in isolation from their mothers who exhibit violent behavior. One researcher using highly sophisticated electronics has identified a telltale “spike” on electroencephalographs that appears associated with aggression.

One of the projects apparently halted by Kretchmer was to look for the “spike” in the brainwaves of violence-prone prison inmates. “Think what it would mean if we could come up with a diagnostic tool like that!“ Prescott says. “If someone was charged with child abuse, the presence of the signal would be an indicator that the person should be given treatment. If it was absent, courts could use that as a factor in deciding whether it was safe to return the child to the family. It might help change the whole hitor—miss way child abusers are handled today — and save a lot of young lives in the bargain.”

As another example of Kretchmer’s alleged obstruction of seemingly valid scientific research, Prescott cites a case in 1978 where the NICHD director scrubbed a “rare opportunity“ to analyze the brain of a person who was dyslexic -— after a scientific review board had approved the project. Prescott had invited Dr. Thomas L. Kemper, director of neuropathology at Boston City Hospital to do the work and he had submitted a proposal. The project had reached the point where NICHD had circulated a statement in the scientific community saying it “plans to negotiate a sole source contract“ with Kemper when Kretchmer intervened. He had the proposal reviewed again, and this time it was rejected. Kemper protested the action to then HEW Secretary Joseph Califano, but got no satisfaction. Dr. Norman Geschwind, a Harvard Medical School neurologist who examined NICHD’s explanation for the project’s cancellation. has commented that it was “simply an example of pure casuistry” in that NICHD tried to make it look like Kemper was in error when the reverse was the case.

Prescott says it was typical of how Kretchmer “made decisions on per— sonal whim and caprice interfering with the scientific review process.” Such interference, Prescott claims, was not confined to his projects alone. He says Kretchmer often took a personal hand in selecting the members of scientific review committees. Kretchmer formerly headed the Stanford University Department of Pediatrics. which has received numerous grants and cantracts from NICHD that Kretchmer has taken a personal interest in. He has, on several occasions visited Stanford to “review data” on various projects — a function normally left to the NICHD project officer, not the director.

Kretchmer likes to travel. Between September 1974 and July 1979. he made 163 trips -— many outside the country —- and because of a claimed disability, he alwavs flew first class. Earlier this year, the Department of Health and Human Services conducted an investigation of his travel and reported that he made “64 trips to universities, of which 10 trips were to Stanford.” In February 1976, Kretchmer flew to San Francisco to “review data on NICHD—Stanford University collaborative project” for the period Feb. 13-13, according to his government travel orders. But instead he was admitted to Stanford University Medical Center on Feb. 13 where he underwent surgery for a circulatory ailment. He was hospitalized until April 3 -— a total of 47 days. During that time, the investigators said, he reported himself “on duty” a total of 22 days, receiving his full pay, and claimed only 13 days sick leave. At that time, Kretchmer had been in government service only 16 months and had not accumulated sufficient sick leave to cover the entire period of his hospitalization.

He also_received a government subsistence allowance of $14 a day while in the hospital — a payment questioned by the investigators. Otherwise, the investigators said, “we found no violation of regulation or law.”

The investigators also found nothing wrong in a three-week trip Kretchmer took to California in 1978 over the Christmas holidays or in the fact that he brought 27 members of his staff with him to the American Pediatric Society annual meeting in Atlanta in 1979. Kretchmer was then president of the society. But Prescott says all of Kretchmer’s travel has forced a reduction in travel by the NICHD scientific staff for want of available funds, constituting another “obstruction of science.”

Prescott wants a congressional investigation of the case. “I think the record shows sufficient evidence that an independent review of Kretchmer’s entire administration is in order.”

When reached by Child Protection Report, Kretchmer declined to comment on any aspect of the case. “I will only answer questions that are put to me in writing,” he said.

Letter: February 23, 1981

Letter to DHHS Secretary Richard S. Schweiker from Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr stating his concerns: “It is clear that if we are to meet our goal of reducing deaths among young people by 20 percent by 1990, we must identify better ways of bringing violence under control, and we must put our knowledge to work in every community”. and “Could you inform me of the nature and level of NICHD support for basic research into child abuse and neglect and into the developmental origins of violence?

View Document

Letter: May 11, 1981

Letter to Senator McC Mathias, Jr. from DHHS Secretary Richard S. Schweiker (some 3 months later) presenting the level of support of child abuse and neglect research by the NICHD, yet stating: “The NICHD has never supported a program of research on child abuse and neglect”.

Child abuse and neglect (failure of affectional bonding) results in traumatic brain injury that has yet to be studied by the NICHD and other federal agencies utilizing MRI and fMRI brain scans and compared to children and young adults who have been breastfed for “two years or longer” with no history of child abuse and neglect.

View Document

Letter: December 19, 1991

Dr.Duane Alexander, M.D. Director, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development letter to Dr. Prescott that stated: “The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) has not supported a program of research on the causes of child abuse and neglect”.

View Document

Letter: July 7, 1994

The White House, Washington. Letter by George R. Stephanopoulos, Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy, to James Prescott: “Your findings on this topic should prove beneficial to how our society perceives growing children.” This letter was the only reaction after the White House received documentation of Prescott’s work a month before.

View Document

Example for Recent Cover-Up

April 1994

Publication of the “Report of the Panel on NIH Research on Antisocial, Agressive, and Violence-Related Behaviors and their Consequences”, Panel Meetings in June and September 1993. (Participant Dr J. W. Prescott, BioBehavioral Systems, San Diego, CA. He presented this testimony.)

Excerpts of the NIH 1994 Report:

a) NIH Panel Findings and Recommendations: “Violence constitutes the second leading cause of death for youth in America, and it poses a health risk for persons of all ages.” (Further Panel Findings and Recommendations)

b) The NIH RESEARCH PORTFOLIO: “With the exception of the National Institute on Mental Health (NIMH), violence research has not been a major priority at NIH (25)”. View Page 75.

c) “In fiscal 1992 the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development spent about $8.9 million on research related to violence (33) (…) Other ongoing research projects focus on such things as self-injurious behavior, aggressive behavior in children and adolescents, the effect of domestic violence on young children (child abuse), and intervention to lower violence-related morbidity and mortality among minority youth.” View Page 76.

d) Appendix F: “devoting as much money to peace studies as to studies of violence” (46) This is the only reference to Dr. Prescott’s extensive testimony. No mention of history of NICHD research on child abuse and neglect nor developmental origins of violence. View Page 121.

e) Summary September 22-24, 1993 meeting: 2nd paragraph: “To date, investment across all Institutes and ICDs in violence-related research has been minuscule relative to the total NIH budget (i.e.0.5%).” View Page 138.

It is generally known (back to medieval or ancient times) that deprivation of sensory stimuli like voice and vision in the early phases of human life will cause irreversible mental retardation in the child. Also the prevention of child play will cause intellectual deficits in the adult. But eyes, ears and the nose are not the only human sensory systems.

Additionally there are the two body sensor systems, the “somatosensors”. One is the vestibular sensor for maintaining orientation and upright walk. The other one is the skin, for sensing touch.


Through the work of James W. Prescott, Ph.D. and various others until the mid 1970s it was established that these previously neglected senses are of overwhelming importance for the development of social abilities for adult life. Their deprivation in childhood is a major cause for adult violence.

James W. Prescott, Ph.D., was a health scientist administrator at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), one of the Institutes of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) from 1966 to 1980. He created and directed the Developmental Behavioral Biology Program at the NICHD where he initiated NICHD supported research programs that documented how the failure of “Mother Love” in infant monkeys adversely affected the biological development of their brains. These astonishing abnormal brain changes underlie the behaviors of depression, impulse dyscontrol and violence that result from mother-infant separations.


These behavioral effects were confirmed in his studies on primitive cultures including the effects of sensory deprivation of human sexual pleasure and affection during adolescence. The results of these scientific studies do not support the many traditional religious and cultural values throughout the world, which deny the importance of “Mothering” and of youth affectional sexual relationships for peaceful and loving behaviors.

The continuation of this research was obstructed and eventually cancelled by the NICHD. Even the existence and results of these NICHD supported research programs was consciously omitted in a recent NIH publication.

On this web site, you can read the whole story. Here you can read a short history of Dr. Prescott’s research and the full text of the groundbreaking article “Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence”, watch the complete Time Life video documentary Rock A Bye Baby, browse the comprehensive archive of scientific papers and visit related websites from our list of selected links.

By James W. Prescott
From “The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists”, November 1975, pp. 10-20

A neuropsychologist contends that the greatest threat to world peace comes from those nations which have the most depriving environments for their children and which are most repressive of sexual affection and female sexuality.
James W. Prescott

What we have learned from the programs of research on the developmental origins of violence, NICHD 1966-1980, are the following:

1. The single most important cause of violent behavior, the developmental depression that precedes it, and the later drug/alcohol abuse that is used to treat the emotional pain that underlies the rage of uncontrolled violence is the failure of physical affectional bonding in the maternal-infant relationship; the paternal-child relationship and the failure of adolescent sexual affectional bonding. In short, it is the failure of physical love in human relationships that begins with the failure of that physical love when the infant is not permitted to bond with the body of its mother which then begins the infant’s journey of depression, rage, hatred and violence for not being loved. Thus, the peril of infant and child day care centers which impedes, if not prevents, the affectional bonding between mother and her infant/child and, thus, all later affectional bonds.

2. Experimental studies of isolation-reared infant monkeys documented that maternal-infant separation constitutes a specific form of somatosensory affectional deprivation (SAD) that involves the somesthetic (touch) and vestibular-cerebellar (movement) sensory systems and results in a variety of abnormalities of brain development that includes structural, neurochemical and neuroelectrical abnormalities. It is these brain abnormalities that mediate the depression, chronic stimulus seeking behaviors, including self-mutilation, and pathologic violence against other animals that are invariably observed consequent to maternal-social deprivation or isolation rearing.

3. Building upon the insights from these experimental animal studies, I conducted cross-cultural studies on 49 primitive cultures distributed throughout the world and was able to predict with 100% accuracy the peaceful and violent nature of these 49 primitive cultures from two predictor variables: a) the degree of physical affectional bonding in the maternal-infant relationship; and b) whether premarital adolescent sex was permitted or punished. There were 29 peaceful and 20 violent cultures in this study sample. There is no other theory or data base that I am aware of that can provide such a prediction of peaceful or violent behaviors and that can relate such findings to specific sensory processes and brain mechanisms of the individual.

4. It is the neuronal systems of the brain which mediate pleasure that regulate and control depression, violence and drug/alcohol abuse and addiction. This control and regulation is provided through the mechanisms of reciprocal inhibition. When the neuronal pleasure circuits of the brain are damaged by SAD-DNS (Somatosensory Affectional Deprivation/Denervation Supersensitivity) then they cannot perform their normative role of regulation and inhibition of those neuronal circuits that mediate depression and violent behaviors.

5. Depressive and Violent Behaviors cannot be understood nor prevented until we understand the neurobiological and neuropsychological role of physical pleasure that must be integrated into those higher brain structures that mediate consciousness and those transcendental states of human spirituality that we call love. Non-integrated pleasure leads to sexual violence and sado-masochism–a consequence of SAD-DNS.

6. Physical affectional pleasure is not only moral but is morally necessary if we are to become moral and spiritual persons in our common bond with humanity. The understanding of the nature of human love is a proper subject for scientific study and such studies are essential if human violence is to be understood and prevented….

The Vagus Nerve and American Obstetrics’ Precision Lobotomization of Empathy and Altruism

The War on Empathy, Love and Family

Bill Gates exhibiting stereotypical rocking movement characteristic of early vestibular (motion) sensory deprivation.  The rich and powerful families were the first to be subjected to “science” as applied to birth and early child care, including medicalized birth , circumcision , mother deprivation , “crying it out” , nannies and childhood boarding schools.   This explains a lot of history.

Institutionalized child rocking his head and body Isolation-reared monkey rocking its head and body
Institutionalized child
rocking his head and body
Isolation-reared monkey
rocking its head and body

Carrying and direct body contact are essential for an infant’s development

Child rearing practices of distant ancestors foster morality, compassion in kids

Baby strollers and the the normalization of (natural 4pi steradian) vestibular and tactile sensory deprivation:

Censored: The Science of Human Nature and Early Childhood Experience

How the CIA hid their MKULTRA mind-control program

by Jon Rappoport

Back in the early 1990s, I interviewed John Marks, author of Search for the Manchurian Candidate. This was the book (1979) that helped expose the existence and range of the infamous CIA MKULTRA program.

Marks related the following facts to me. He had originally filed many Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests for documents connected to the CIA’s mind-control program. He got nothing back.

Finally, as if to play a joke on him, someone at the CIA sent Marks 10 boxes of financial and accounting records. The attitude was, “Here, see what you can do with this.”

I’ve seen some of those records. They’re very boring reading.

But Marks went through them, and lo and behold, he found he could piece together MKULTRA projects, based on the funding data.

Eventually, he assembled enough information to begin naming names. He conducted interviews. The shape of MKULTRA swam into view. And so he wrote his book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate.

He told me that three important books had been written about MKULTRA, and they all stemmed from those 10 boxes of CIA financial records. There was his own book; Operation Mind Control by Walter Bowart; and The Mind Manipulators by Alan Scheflin and Edward Opton.

After publishing his book, Marks continued to press the CIA for more MKULTRA information. He explained to me what then happened. A CIA official told him the following: in 1962, after ten years of mind-control experiments, the whole program had been shifted over to another internal CIA department, the Office of Research and Development (ORD).

The ORD had a hundred boxes of information on their MKULTRA work, and there was no way under the sun, Marks was told, he was ever going to get his hands on any of that. It was over. It didn’t matter how many FOIA requests Marks filed. He was done. The door was shut. Goodbye.

The CIA went darker than it ever had before. No leaks of any kind would be permitted.

In case there is any doubt about it, the idea of relying on the CIA to admit what it has done in the mind-control area, what it is doing, and what it will do should be put to bed by John Mark’s statements. The CIA always has been, and will continue to be, a rogue agency.

To give you an idea of how far the CIA, the US military, and its allied academics will go in MKULTRA “research,” here is what I wrote in 1995 about several human experiments. My information was based on the three key books I mentioned above, as well as Martin Lee’s classic, Acid Dreams:

“Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane University, as early as 1955, working for the Army, gave patients LSD while he had electrodes implanted deep inside their brains.”

“In the mid-1950’s, Paul Hoch, M.D., a man who would become Commissioner of Mental Hygiene for the State of New York, then a laborer in the field for the CIA, gave a ‘pseudoneurotic schizophrenic’ patient mescaline. The patient had a heaven-and-hell journey on the compound. But Hoch followed this up with a transorbital leucotomy [aka lobotomy]… Hoch also gave a patient LSD, and a local anesthetic, and then proceeded to remove pieces of his cerebral cortex, asking at various moments whether the patient’s perceptions were changing.”

People need to understand how the history of mind control and psychiatry are interwoven, and how the madmen and murderers within these “professions” are content to use torture “in the name of science.”

From a article by the heroic whistleblower, psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin (“Never again! The real history of psychiatry”), we get insight into one aspect of that history.

Breggin: “[Before World War 2, in America], organized psychiatry had been sterilizing tens of thousands of Americans. For a time in California, you couldn’t be discharged from a state hospital unless you were sterilized. In Virginia the retarded were targeted. American advocates of sterilization went to Berlin to help the Nazis plan their sterilization program. These Americans reassured the Germans that they would meet no opposition from America in sterilizing their mentally and physically ‘unfit’ citizens.”

“While the murder of mental patients was going full swing in Germany, knowledgeable American psychiatrists and neurologists didn’t want to be left out. In 1942, the American Psychiatric Association held a debate about whether to sterilize or to murder low IQ ‘retarded’ children when they reached the age of five. Those were the only two alternatives in the debate: sterilization or death.”

“After the debate, the official journal of the American Psychiatric Association published an editorial in which it chose sides in favor of murder (“Euthanasia” in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1942, volume 99, pp. 141-143). It said psychiatrists would have to muster their psychological skills to keep parents from feeling guilty about agreeing to have their children killed.”

The psychiatrists who later went to work for the CIA, in the MKULTRA program, were devoid of conscience. Any experiment was a good experiment. Human beings were “useful subjects.”

Here is an MKULTRA sub-project you may not have heard of. I wrote about it several years ago—

Some would say the 1940s and 50s were the most vibrant and innovative period in the history of American jazz.

During those years, it was common knowledge that musicians who were busted for drug use were shipped, or volunteered to go, to Lexington, Kentucky. Lex was the first Narcotics Farm and US Health Dept. drug treatment hospital in the US.

According to diverse sources, here’s a partial list of the reported “hundreds” of jazz musicians who went to Lex: Red Rodney, Sonny Rollins, Chet Baker, Sonny Stitt, Howard McGhee, Elvin Jones, Zoot Sims, Lee Morgan, Tadd Dameron, Stan Levey, Jackie McLean.

It’s also reported that Ray Charles was there, and William Burroughs, Peter Lorre, and Sammy Davis, Jr.

It was supposed to be a rehab center. A place for drying out.

But it was something else too. Lex was used by the CIA as one of its MKULTRA centers for experimentation on inmates.

The doctor in charge of this mind control program was Harris Isbell. Isbell was, at the same time, a member of the FDA’s Advisory Committee on the Abuse of Depressant and Stimulant Drugs.

Isbell gave LSD and other psychedelics to inmates at Lex.

At Sandoz labs in Switzerland, Dr. Albert Hofmann, the discoverer of LSD, also synthesized psilocybin from magic mushrooms. The CIA got some of this new synthetic from Hofmann and gave it to Isbell so he could try it out on inmates at Lex.

Isbell worked at Lex from the 1940s through 1963. It is reported that in one experiment, Isbell gave LSD to 7 inmates for 77 consecutive days. At 4 times the normal dosage. That is a chemical hammer of incredible proportions.

To induce inmates to join these MKULTRA drug experiments, they were offered the drug of their choice, which in many cases was heroin. So at a facility dedicated to drying out and rehabbing addicts, the addicts were subjected to MKULTRA experiments and THEN a re-establishment of their former habit.

Apparently, as many as 800 different drugs were sent to Isbell by the CIA or CIA allies to use on patients at Lex. Two of the allies? The US Navy and the US National Institute of Mental Health—proof that MKULTRA extended beyond the CIA.

In another MKULTRA experiment at Lex, nine men were strapped down on tables. They were injected with psilocybin. Bright lights were beamed at their eyes—a typical mind control component.

During Isbell’s tenure, no one knows how many separate experiments he ran on the inmates.

As I say, Lex was the main stop for drying out for NY jazz musicians. How many of them were taken into these MKULTRA programs?

As Martin Lee explains in his book, Acid Dreams, “It became an open secret…that if the [heroin] supply got tight [on the street], you could always commit yourself to Lexington, where heroin and morphine were doled out as payment if you volunteered for Isbell’s whacky drug experiments. (Small wonder Lexington had a return rate of 90%.)”

A June 15, 1999, Counterpunch article by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, “CIA’s Sidney Gottlieb: Pusher, Assassin & Pimp— US Official Poisoner Dies,” contains these quotes on Dr. Isbell:

“Gottlieb also funded the experiments of Dr. Harris Isbell. Isbell ran the Center for Addiction Research in Lexington, Kentucky. Passing through Isbell’s center was a captive group of human guinea pigs in the form of a steady stream of black heroin addicts. More than 800 different chemical compounds were shipped from Gottlieb to Lexington for testing on Isbell’s patients.”

“Perhaps the most infamous experiment came when Isbell gave LSD to seven black men for seventy-seven straight days. Isbell’s research notes indicates that he gave the men ‘quadruple’ the ‘normal’ dosages. The doctor marveled at the men’s apparent tolerance to these remarkable amounts of LSD. Isbell wrote in his notes that ‘this type of behavior is to be expected in patients of this type’.”

“In other Gottlieb-funded experiment at the Center, Isbell had nine black males strapped to tables, injected them with psylocybin, inserted rectal thermometers, had lights shown in their eyes to measure pupil dilation and had their joints whacked to test neural reactions.”

If you think these experiments were so extreme they bear no resemblance to modern psychiatry, think again. Thorazine, the first so-called anti-psychotic drug, was researched on the basis of its ability to make humans profoundly quiescent and passive. Electroshock and lobotomy are straight-out torture techniques that also destroy parts of the brain. SSRI antidepressants increase violent behavior, including homicide. Among its many documented effects, Ritalin can induce hallucinations and paranoia.

Well, all these effects are part and parcel of the original (and ongoing) MKULTRA.

But now the whole population, via psychiatry, is included in the experiment.

Which is one reason why the right to refuse medication must be protected and expanded.