Medical Ethics and Human Radiation Experiments in the Age of Personalised Medicine and fully informed consent.

Personalised Medicine: “Personalised medicine is a move away from a ‘one size fits all’ approach to the treatment and care of patients with a particular condition, to one which uses new approaches to better manage patients’ health and targets therapies to achieve the best outcomes in the management of a patient’s disease or predisposition to disease.

We are all unique. Our health is determined by our inherent differences combined with our lifestyles and environment. By combining and analysing information about our genome, with other clinical and diagnostic information, patterns can be identified that can help to determine our individual risk of developing disease; detect illness earlier; and, determine the most effective interventions to help improve our health, be they medicines, lifestyle choices, or even simple changes in diet.

The concept of personalised medicine is not new. Clinicians have been working to personalise care, tailored to people’s individual health needs, throughout the history of medicine, but never before has it been possible to predict how each of our bodies will respond to specific interventions, or identify which of us is at risk of developing an illness. New possibilities are now emerging as we bring together novel approaches, such as whole genome sequencing, data and informatics, and wearable technology. It is the interconnections between these innovations that makes it possible to move to an era of truly personalised care.” Source: National Health Service, England at https://www.england.nhs.uk/healthcare-science/personalisedmedicine/

Medical Ethics: “Bioethicists often refer to the four basic principles of health care ethics when evaluating the merits and difficulties of medical procedures. Ideally, for a medical practice to be considered “ethical”, it must respect all four of these principles: autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence….

“Autonomy
Requires that the patient have autonomy of thought, intention, and action when making decisions regarding health care
procedures. Therefore, the decision-making process must be free of coercion or coaxing. In order for a patient to
make a fully informed decision, she/he must understand all risks and benefits of the procedure and the likelihood of
success. Because ARTs are highly technical and may involve high emotions, it is difficult to expect patients to be
operating under fully-informed consent.

Justice

The idea that the burdens and benefits of new or experimental treatments must be distributed equally among all groups in
society. Requires that procedures uphold the spirit of existing laws and are fair to all players involved. The health care provider must consider four main areas when evaluating justice: fair distribution of scarce resources, competing needs, rights and obligations, and potential conflicts with established legislation.

Beneficence

Requires that the procedure be provided with the intent of doing good for the patient involved. Demands that health care providers develop and maintain skills and knowledge, continually update training, consider individual circumstances of all patients, and strive for net benefit.

Non-maleficence

Requires that a procedure does not harm the patient involved or others in society. end quote. Source: What are the Basic Principles of
Medical Ethics? at https://web.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/reprotech/New%20Ways%20of%20Making%20Babies/EthicVoc.htm

Human Radiation Experiments

“In November of 1993, the United States was hit with a big shock when records of human radiation experiments from 1944 to 1974 were suddenly released. The energy secretary at the time, Hazel R. O’Leary (fig. 1), pronounced that she was appalled at the work that her predecessors had sanctioned, and launched a full scale investigation into the records of what had happened in order to uncover the atrocities committed by the United States government. [1] Additionally, president Bill Clinton formed an advisory committee that held hearings over the course of 18 months on the human radiation experiments conducted. [2] The department of Energy’s predecessors, the Manhattan Project, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Energy Research and Development Administration, had each conducted or authorized a series radiation experiments on humans, evidently to benefit the United States during the Cold War. [3] At the time, though the United States was making incredible advances is nuclear energy, they knew little about the consequences of the radiation that these new energy resources emitted. [3] The Cuban Missile Crisis and other Cold War tensions had increased fears of nuclear war, and the military was demanding answers about radiation’s effects on soldiers and astronauts. [4]….

The investigation lead by Secretary O’Leary found that unethical experiments had been carried out by government doctors, scientists, and military officials on as many as 20,000 people between 1944 and 1974. [2] The President’s committee found that over 40,000 experiments had been conducted. [2] The experiments conducted were far reaching across the country, and often targeted individuals that either did not know the potential dangers of being involved, or did not volunteer to be involved at all. [3] Some prominent examples include 800 pregnant women being administered radioactive iron in the late 1940s at Vanderbilt university, 200 cancer patients exposed to extremely high levels of radiation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 18 persons injected with plutonium at the University of Chicago, 11 terminally ill cancer patients injected with radioactive calcium in New York City in the late 1950s, and 19 mentally disabled teenage boys who were unknowingly exposed to radioactive ingredients in food during so called nutritional studies. [2,3,5] Some of the most famous examples include two rival experiments done on prisoners in the Washington State Prison and the Oregon State Prison respectively, to determine the dosage of radiation to male testicles to produce sterility. [3,4]” end quote. Source: United States Human Radiation Experiments
Cate Guyman
January 27, 2018
Submitted as coursework for PH241, Stanford University, Winter 2017 at http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/guyman2/

A further example of secret human radiation experiments which also took place with no expectation of benefit to the experimental subject or their kin (either living or dead) is documented in the UK Governments Redfern report which reports on British Nuclear Fuel Limited illegal use of living persons, including British school children and the illegal use without kin permission of tissue taken from deceased civilians, including deceased children, nuclear power workers, and deceased British Nuclear Veterans. The British government claims the illegal practises and abuse of medical ethics and people ceased in 1994. BNFL is now bankrupt. Volume 1 of the Redfern Report on the behaviour of civil nuclear industry in the modern era is available here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229155/0571_i.pdf

All of the above topics have, in my opinion, a direct bearing when studying the behaviour and statements made by the Australian nuclear industry during the time it was advocating for the expansion of uranium mining is SA, especially after the events in Japan of March 2011. See my submission to the SA Royal Commission in the nuclear cycle for more information on this. Though no actual medical experiments actually took place, Flinders University did call for volunteers in 2011 2012 purportedly to irradiate healthy male prostate glands, not for X ray purposes but for a claimed benefit which had not been, nor has yet been, proven medically to produce a medical to males with healthy prostate glands. The issue is the proposal to expose people to radiation where there is no proof of benefit and were there is evidence that the proposed experiment could cause harm. The call for volunteers never eventuated and the experiments never took place.
(Source: Flinders University press release 1999. Channel 7 News Adelaide, proposal to announce a call for healthy males to have their prostates irradiated to prove the theory of hormesis. Presented by Prof Pam Sykes, and broadcast by Channel 7 in the midst of the SA Uranium debate. Cited in pro nuclear press articles by the the Chief Geologist of Toro Energy, a uranium mining company.

As the call for volunteers never eventuated, as far as I can determine given the repeated failure of the relevant Flinders University Centre of Research to answer my emails about the matter, (being polite does not seem to work), I am considering writing to this mob: Executive Officer human.researchethics@flinders.edu.au
P +61 (0) 8 8201 3116 (Mon – Fri)
P +61 (0) 8 8201 7938 (Mon, Wed, Fri)
http://www.flinders.edu.au/research/researcher-support/ebi/human-ethics/applying.cfm

In this manner I hope to ascertain whether the proposed human radiation experiment proceeded even as far as the ethical approval application stage. It probably did not. The whole thing being an excersize, I suspect, in misusing medicine and the principles of medical ethics in order to present confusion relating to the alleged health benefits of uranium mining in SA. To quote Sykes

“The possibility that low doses of radiation may prevent or delay the progression of cancer is being explored by a Flinders University research team led by Professor Pam Sykes
“We have to ensure that radiation is respected and we have to understand what damage radiation can cause – but radiation is not the poison, the dose is,” Professor Sykes said.

“We need radiation in our environment, just as we need vitamins and minerals. Too much is a problem, too little is a problem,” she said.” Source: “Radiation response a Meltdown in reason” Sykes et al, Flinders Marketing at https://news.flinders.edu.au/blog/2011/07/14/radiation-response-a-meltdown-in-reason/

The fact is that conventional medicine, including health physics, holds that the theory of hormesis held by Sykes remains unproven. Whether it is true or false, is, according to science, unproven. Further Sykes conflates two concepts without clarification in the public domain. Whilst hormesis remains unproven theory, and was found to be so by the SA Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle final report, the theory of the conditioning dose has a body of science behind it which supports it. The theory of the conditioning dose goes like this:

When a person has a medical need to undergo Treatment Dose radiation therapy (ie a dose of radiation which is quite high, enough, in some cases, to produce radiation fatigue and skin burn, transient depleted blood counts etc depending on the treatment regime needed) the effects of radiation produce side effects and long term health risks while at the same time extending the patient’s life and reducing pain. There are the usual costs and benefits in treatment dose radiation therapy for the patient as is normally case in medicine.

There are strong indications that where a person undergoes a low dose radiation exposure prior to high treatment dose radiation therapy, side effects and long term risks might be reduced by virtue of induced bodily response triggered by the initial low dose. Therefore producing the same or greater life extension or survival time, because the lower risks of the low dose exposure produce the benefit of comparatively fewer risks resulting from the subsequent high dose.

Conditioning Dose is very different from radiation hormesis. The idea that cancer can be delayed by irradiating healthy tissue (the Flinders case the proposal to irradiate healthy prostate tissue in males of any age in order to see if the expose cohort developed more or less prostate caner over the life spans of the volunteers), has not been proven.

While various schools of hormesis (ie academic trains of thought) publish copiously on the matter of hormesis, the school fundamentally peer reviews itself. in my opinion. I do not consider it to be scientific and is in my view a PR excersize which in SA had been funded from 1999 until at least 2011 2012 by the US Department of Energy. And if you ask the VC Research at Flinders Uni about this, that person, being funded by us, has a duty to answer to you. Not that they would answer me. It would be interesting to see what the relevant Flinders centre of research advises the VC (R) to say in reply. Universities are not the Vatican in the 1500s. They are bodies government by State and Federal laws. Not being a student, ordinary people are not subject to the dictates of University rules off campus. Any refusal to supply information can be escalated to an FOI request made to Federal Government authorities. So, what did happen to the much vaunted healthy prostate gland irradiation experiment on male humans at Flinders University? How far to the project get from 1999 to 2012. These days a search reveals Sykes is promoting the use of Fverfew as a cure for cancer. It’s 2018. FU promised a new cancer cure in 1999. That’s 19 years. By way of contrast, starting work on a cancer treatment in 1939, at Berkeley University, Charles Pecher by 1940 had produced a new cancer treatment to such benefit that intractable and untreatable cancer pain had been defeated in a number of fully informed terminal bone cancer patients. One even left his bed and returned to work. (Brucer, Chronicles of Nuclear Medicine, Pecher, posthumous, 1941. University of Berkeley.) Of course, the work of Pecher was suppressed from the 1950s and forgotten until 1974. It was finally released for public benefit in the 1980s. Metastron GE calls it. Nuclear advocates considers its active ingredient, Sr89, perfectly safe as it shrinks tumors in the terminally ill, thus greatly easing pain. Such advocates fail to acknowledge that Sr89 potency in killing cells also attests to its ability to transform normal cells into cancerous ones. It is not a cure, it is a method of treating pain in end stage bone cancer.

Pull your finger out Flinders. You are wasting time and money on useless PR at the behest of industries we do not want.

Let me be very clear here. The concept of x ray screening to detect cancers as early as possible gives a population an unquestioned medical benefit. Conventional science recognises that though x ray screening carries a small risk, the consequences of that risk is so small that the benefits of the resultant early detection of disease imparts a vastly greater benefit to the population.

It is here that the principles of personalised medicine apply. If there is a very clear of cancer in a segment of the population, those at the greatest risk, far from avoiding early detection by any means, should, rather, seek it out most willingly. In my lay opinion. Any exposure conveys risk according to the individual, their genetics, their lifestyle, their personal vulnerabilities, their characteristics including age and gender, their personality type and so on. The human genome is vastly diverse. We are not all the same.

The nuclear industry in its pronouncements and edicts about safety, for example in the aftermath of that allegedly impossible mass reactor disaster in Japan (though millions of particularly Americans had worried about it since 1974 when the industry promised it could never happen, so regaining its licence to recommence building reactors, for the government inquiry believed the industry over sacked engineers etc) was in my opinion reactionary against the principles of personalised medicine, in denial about its obligations under the moral and medical ethical behaviour and happy to use a captive and involuntary population in a vast experiment to prove who was right and who was wrong.

A chest x ray pa due to Fukushima 2011 has a different dose effectiveness for an older man than it does for a baby girl. But TEPCO celebrated the free exposure equally dispensed by its non qualified abandonment and failures since 1969, when construction started on the plant. A baby girl born to a Fukushima family naturally and sadly prone to one of the forms of lymphoma, when she grows up, is going to have very little to thank the nuclear industry. She might live x years. If she develops the family prone disease 10 to 20 years early than here grandmother did, then perhaps, she will mourn ever living in the Fukushima fallout zone. And it would a be brave person who would say to her Oh, those bent and broken and venting reactors were and are perfectly safe.

Because Ben and Barry, and Pam, they ain’t and never were.

Channel 9 and Ben Heard were greatly remiss in their broadcast conclusion that the Fukushima exclusion zone is the result of poor human decision making with nothing to do with radiological facts. As outlined in the international guidelines and regulations regarding such things. Neither the broadcaster nor the alleged expert made any references to the international obligations Japanese authorities are under for the protection of the public in such circumstances.

The industry is over the moon, I think , at such broadcast ignorance in my opinion.

Where it is uneconomic to clean up contaminated land, people are excluded from it. This reduces disturbance and the resuspension of radioactive dust into air. Such uneconomic to clean up land, when left undisturbed, will not generate much of a radiation reading when air is monitoring inside a moving vehicle travelling along a sealed road in that exclusion zone. How dumb are these people.

Go and dig a trench in the same area Channel 9 and get your kids to make mud pies in that trench. Then monitor your kid’s skin, hair and urine before suggesting to me over the airways that the Fukushima exclusion zone is useless.

I consider them to be ignorant and unethical in their broadcast.

I think I’m finished on the matter of the defects evident within Episode 34 of Channel 9 Australia’s “Sixty Minutes” program.

Go back to school Ben. If there is no real expectation of medical benefit, if there is no diagnosis requiring treatment, if there is no fully informed consent from the individual subject to actions by medical authorities, then the exposure is not medicine in any sense. Not being medical renders it something else. The exposure becomes an unethical experiment (Source: McFaden, Ruth, Chair, the President’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, Final Report, USA, 1995.

Apart from reading Westinghouse sale brochures Barry and Ben, have you ever considered reading anything else? Bazza McKenzie comics would be a place to start. Perhaps, if you can cope.

My personal view on the Fukushima Exclusion Zone is this: If someone is homesick, let them go home, with support and knowledge to at least dust the house with a damp cloth not a dry one, and to post the dirty cloth to TEPCO. Use a bagged vacuum cleaner, not a dyson type. Let contamination of the person when emptying the machine. Post the bag back to TEPCO. Buy a new washing machine whenever you like. Get TEPCO to pay. Anything can accrete their crap, even in low physical amounts. It’s theirs, they put the shit there. Grow bananas in pots filled with Australian potting mix, not dirt from where you live in the exclusion zone. (Not a meltdown in reason as claimed by Australian US DOE contractors)

If a person does not want to go home, for whatever reason – high dose cancer treatment in 2007, a family history of lymphoma, or anything else, personal preference or belief. Distrust in government and TEPCO. A rational response totally unfunded by the US Department of Energy. (Not a meltdown in reason as claimed by Australian US DOE contractors such as produced this mass insult in coordination with Toro Energy: https://news.flinders.edu.au/blog/2011/07/14/radiation-response-a-meltdown-in-reason/

After all, Japan is a democracy and the people are supposed to be free. Still Japan has agreed to the authority of the ICRP and IAEA and those are they authorities the government there is complying with Ben. So why aren’t you busy protesting outside some building in Vienna or Brussels instead of claiming its all the fault of ordinary Japanese people and their allegedly baseless fears, according to you????

How soon did you insist that the owners of the Maralinga lands should have been allowed to go home? Where would your spirit have in 1984 when it was found out by Premier Bannon that the place was too filthy for the people to go home? Where were you when the cleanup began in the 1990s and finished in the early 2000s? The cleanup criteria at Maralinga was designed in according to the same ICRP rules as the Japanese cleanup is being conducted. Neither were good enough, Japan is still ongoing. The cleanup of land is done on a cost benefit basis and the exclusion zones exist for a reason. Reasons you plainly cannot grasp. There are still limits on what the people may do in some parts of the Maralinga. Much the same as in Japan. Let’s say I have some Emu eggs from a place called Section 40 and Kangaroo fillets from some place. Wanna come round for a barbie?

I refer again to the paper : “Exposure and current health issues in Minamisoma M. Tsubokura Minamisoma Municipal General Hospital, 2-54-6 Takamicho, Haramachi-ku, Minamisoma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan; e-mail: tsubokura-tky@umin.ac.jp”

“More than 5 years since the disaster, internal exposure levels on the order of several thousand or several tens of thousands of becquerels are still being detected in those who regularly consume wild boar, wild birds, wild vegetables, or mushrooms that are highly contaminated, with a frequency of about several persons per 10,000 people (Tsubokura et al., 2014). However, internal exposure levels are not likely to increase for those who consume foods distributed through regular channels.” source: as above. Um, Mr Herd, do you hunt, fish and pick wild olives much mate? I guess not. You have no appreciation of different cultural norms and chosen and preferred dietary habits fulfilled for thousands of years continuously in that ancient place, Japan. It seems to me, in my opinion. What if the Mr Morrison told you you are only allowed to shop at Aldi and that Coles and Woolies and the Port Noarlunga jetty were risky places to obtain food because your body count would go up?

I aint making this stuff up. I’m only stating common knowledge published in the appropriate medium, the scientific press. You must have weird sources Ben.

I wonder where the wild pigs get all that radio cesium from. Oh that’s right, from eating stuff in the Exclusion Zone.

So much for working at a university as a testament to proof of common sense.

Advertisements