Talk:Henry K. Beecher

Reversion of edits by 212.186.70.158

I have serious concerns about the edits undertaken by the above anon user. Other than several grammatical errors, the edits appear to be one largely set out to discredit the recognised work of Henry Beecher. I must admit that I am not able to factcheck the references cited: including a CIA report and a German documentary. But really, if what s/he says is true i.e. that Henry Beecher collaborated with Nazi experiments, I'm pretty damn sure that I would have heard of this somewhere else before! I'm more than happy to be corrected if this turns out to be true but I have very serious doubts. --Serenity forest 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not the author of the edit you reverted, but I have seen the same TV-documentation on the German Television channel SWR (south german TV channel www.swr.de) this week. It was documented with CIA-documents which were released during the last months ! (you may have already heared about the release of an enourmos number of "old" CIA-documents which had been secret for decades). There you saw the signature of Dr. Beecher on CIA-documents in the fifties where he analysed reports about the torture methods in the Nazi-concentrazion camps and it was also documented, that he had participated in simmilar experiments in post-war germany in US-prison camps. And there were witnesses, that under his experiments after 1945 people died! One of the informants Dr. Beecher appreciated and even recommended was a former doctor from a concentration camp. The documentation also pointed out, that Dr. Beecher as well as other US-scientist had supported the work for the CIA-handbook for torture which was released in the 60s and which was then exported to the south-american regimes which cooperated with the USA (and which leaded in some way to the torture methods in today Iraq, especially in Abu Graib). The film makers of the documentation also had citated his later article AGAINST torture and they had gone to Harvard Medical School to confront them with these facts, but a spokes-person of Harvard tried to relativize the CIA-documents. So Harvard allready knows about this, but it seems that they dont like to speak about it. -- Rfortner 20:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: I dont know if you speak german but here I post for you the official announcement of the documentation by the german TV-channel SWR (you can google for it):

SWR - Mo. 09.07.2007 - 22:30 Uhr: Folterexperten - Die geheimen Methoden der CIA:Im Mai 2004 gelangten Berichte und Fotos in die Medien, die belegen, dass US-Militär- und Geheimdienstmitarbeiter Gefangene im Abu-Ghraib-Gefängnis nahe Bagdad gefoltert hatten. Die amerikanische Regierung verwies darauf, dass es sich um Übergriffe einzelner Soldaten gehandelt habe und dass dies nicht im Auftrag oder mit Duldung der US-Behörden geschehen sei. Stimmt dies? Oder sind brutale Verhöre bis hin zur Folter ein fester Bestandteil des Kriegs gegen den Terror? Der Dokumentarfilmer Egmont R. Koch geht dieser Frage in seinem Film nach. ... Bei seinen Recherchen stieß er auf schockierende Videoclips, die amerikanische Soldaten und CIA-Agenten im Gefängnis Abu Ghraib beim Quälen irakischer Opfer aufgenommen haben. Sie werden in diesem Film erstmals gezeigt. Die meisten Täter sind inzwischen verurteilt. Doch scheint es sich keineswegs um perverse Entgleisungen Einzelner zu handeln - sondern um seit Jahrzehnten bewährte Foltermethoden der CIA: Egmont R. Koch stößt auf ein geheimes Handbuch der CIA, das 1963 erstellt und dann u. a. südamerikanischen Militärdiktaturen zur Verfügung gestellt wurde. Im Rahmen des Krieges gegen den Terror grub die CIA das Handbuch offenbar wieder aus. Die Suche nach den Wurzeln der geheimen Foltermethoden führt weiter in die Vergangenheit: Anfang der 50er-Jahre wurden einige Techniken von der CIA in einer Villa in Kronberg bei Frankfurt erprobt, dabei der Tod von Versuchspersonen in Kauf genommen. Egmont R. Koch spürt das 'Folterhaus' auf und stößt dabei auf neue Hinweise, die noch weiter in die Geschichte führen: ins Konzentrationslager Dachau.

And here some references to the CIA-handbook from 1963 for torture mentioned above, which was called KUBARK:

The Handbook (partly censured) (unfortunately some of the references seem to be deleted); Washington Post Article; History News Network (Also mentioning the experiments in the 50s and 60s). By the way: I agree that someone could rephrase the information given from this german TV-documentation more "factual", as the current parts in the article concerning this topic really sound a little bit emotional. -- Rfortner 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not literate in German so I have to take your word for it and I thank you for drawing this to my conclusion. I have decided not to edit this version any further as it is obviously best left up to others that are have seen the CIA report and the documentary. It is rather upsetting for me to see that someone who has been the catalyst for the genesis of the Institutional review board to protect human rights is now alleged to be part of the Nazi experiments. I do agree that the wordings do need some editing e.g. that his publication was "nothing but a lie" to make it more objective. --Nuttycoconut 06:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can really see these CIA-documents in the german TV-documentation, I am quite sure that someone will find the right link to them, they are directly connected to the genesis of KUBARK. Maybe someone can ask for it in Langley? ;-)

Seriously: The effect you describe is not soooo new, at least for us here in middle europe. In Germany there are many examples of people who fought hardly against Nazi-ideology after 1945, and during the last years it was discovered that they also had been particpating in the system before 1945 (even at a quite low level). Best example for this effect is the German author Günter Grass (who even holds a nobel price in literature!). I am not a psychologist, but it seems like sometime seeing DIRECTLY what evil & harmfull things can do to mankind leads to turn against it - even after participating in it.

But be carefull with your wordings about him, because saying he has been part of the Nazi experiments, thats not correct! Beecher was obviously not connected to any Nazi-ideology, he just continued some of their torture-experiments (especially with drugs) in the 50s, even in secret US-prison camps in western germany (maybe just for pushing his career). And he used a lot of sources for this work, inculding written reports from the doctors in Nazi-concentration camps but also by a personal contact with some of those doctors, and one of them he "recommended". In the end he was one of several scientist who obviously supported the work of the CIA and the genesis of KUBARK -- Rfortner 09:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute

First, full disclosure: I am a descendant of the Beecher family and may have COI.

The statements in this article may be correct and/or cited—I have not specifically looked—but are too opinionated to be properly encyclopedic. This man may have done evil things that hurt many people but words like "gregarious … imposing … genteel … murderous research" clearly define a position that the article has taken on this man. A re-write or removal of the problematic language may be necessary. —Parhamr 00:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your critics about the style of the edits about his participation in CIA-torture-experiments. They are not from me but obviously they were made by someone who saw the same documentation in German TV and who's mother language is NOT English ;-) ... Therefore a native English-speaker should correct this part of the article.

BUT, you cannot delete nearly the whole article without giving an appropiate proof for the claimed copyright-violation. What you did (after trying several negative Wikipedia-labels for the article) looks like panic, not like serious editing ... -- Rfortner 01:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't my smoothest series of edits—I tagged one, realized another needed tag and then upon reading more found the copyright violation —Parhamr 04:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Horribly POV article

This article uses weasel words and WP:REDFLAG sources that borders on libel. This requires a serious reboot. Djma12 ^(talk) 15:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Source verification needed

A specific transcript of the claims made by 212.186.70.158 and tentatively—pending NPOV fix—verified by User:Rfortner is needed. The documentary claimed as source was presented by South German TV channel SWR in early July, 2007 and appears to be titled "Folterexperten-Die geheimen Methoden des CIA" by Egmont R. Koch. —Parhamr 06:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• A German documentary cannot be used for citation per WP:RSUE unless a published english translation can be found.Djma12 ^(talk) 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This argument is not quite appropiate in a globalized world and shows some kind of chauvinism. There are enough users and even administrators in the Anglophone Wikipedia who are capable to speak German and check the sources. Its not the fault of German medias, that US-medias still have not investigated the story. Maybe they even did, but I am not an US-citizen to know about. But I know that the TV-documentary showed the original CIA-reports and especially those sections concerning Beecher (including his signature). They even had an eye-witness. -- Rfortner 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: If you still have doubts, I am sure we can contact SWR and Mr. Koch via Email and ask him for his sources. Guessing from the very serious style of his documentation I am sure he will not reject such a request, as he even travelled to Boston to get an official statement from Boston Med (which was also shown in the documentary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfortner (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PPS: But maybe before you should watch the TV-documentation of Egmont R. Koch about Project ARTICHOKE, as he already published this topic in 2002 (Egmont R. Koch, Michael Wech: Deckname Artischocke. Die geheimen Menschenversuche der CIA, Goldmann). Lukely there is an English Version of the corresponding TV-documentation which was emited by "Worldlink Spotlight" and can be found (splitted in 5 parts) at Youtube: TV-documentary about Project Atichoke by Egmont R. Koch. So at least you can be sure that this man knows what he is saying when accusing Mr. Beecher. -- Rfortner 23:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem like a fairly reputable editor, so sorry if I originally treated the edits like vandalism. You'd be surprised by how many random claims get inserted into wiki biographies.

The links you submitted for citation, though helpful, still do not meet WP:V criteria, specifically criteria on WP:RSUE and WP:REDFLAG (extraordinary claims require extraordinary citation.) Perhaps you disagree with the spirit of WP:RSUE, and I can see how you feel it is chauvanistic. However, policy still is policy, and it only exists to make verifiability easier. Concerning the youtube videos posted, they don't exactly fit the standard of WP:REDFLAG, given the seriousness of the accusation being made. Finally, unaccessable CIA documents are by definition unverifiable, and do not fit WP:V.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that what you claim did not occur. However, per WP:V, we do need more solid citation before such serious claims can be put up. As such, I'm reverting your edits, but am more than happy to work on some type of inclusion that would fit citation policy.

Djma12 ^(talk) 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to post the text twice (here and on my talk page), I have an eye on this page (and prefer to discuss topics where they belong to). By the way: Originall it was not me who made these edits, but I had an eye on them and wanted to save them from being deleted, therefore I invested some time to make them more appropiate. About the facts:

As far as I can see the policy that you refer to, its about the question if sources in other languages can be used and how they have to be translated in a correct way. As you can see in my edits, I dont post any personal opinion, I post the facts which where given in the German TV-documentation (which was made by a very reputable film-maker, as you can see in the Youtube-link to one of his earlier documentaries about the dirty little secrets of CIA-experiments "Artichocke" .... by the way: you cannot have been watching all the documentary during this short time-period since I posted the link?). Mr Koch published a lot of famous books and made a lot of documentaries about such "dirty little secrets", e.g. about the participation of German companies in the atomic-program of Iran, or about medical scandals in Germany. He started his revelation-career with a book about the Seveso disaster.

So you can be sure that my English is good enough to translate facts which I got in German, I mean what can I personally make wrong when writing a sentence like: "According to these recent reports and an eye-witness, Beecher allegedly killed a patient with a mescaline injection in 1953 in a secret CIA-prison located in "Villa Schuster" in Kronberg near Frankfurt (West-Germany) which was related to the nearby US-interrogation center Camp King". These are the facts given in the documentary, I just built an English sentence around them, but I gave you the exact place where it happened in Germany (according to the documentary).

Another point: The CIA-documents are not unaccessable, as they have been declassified (so the German TV-team got them). It would be the responsibility of the US-media to do the same in-depth-research as Mr. Koch did, or at least to translate his documentary in English (as they did with the Artichocke-documentary, so maybe in 2 years you can find your facts about Mr. Beecher in English :-) ).

But your proposal about a "controversary"-section sounds reasonable, as the first publishing of these finding is quite new (July 2007). So go ahead with this. But I also repeat my idea to contact Mr. Koch (or his TV-production-firm) in Bremen, because maybe he can send us scans from the original CIA-documents, his contacts are:

Egmont R. Koch - Filmproduktion, D-28355 Bremen, E-Mail: ekochfilm(at)gmx.de.

PS: Personally I think that the information about Beechers activities in the 1950's and his ethics-article in 1966 is NOT a contradiction. If the facts given by Mr. Koch are true, Beecher knew exactly which kind of practices where "state of the art" in human experiments at that time, so maybe there was a personal trigger-event after which he became a true opponent of such practices.

-- Rfortner 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Alas, I'm afraid any personal contact I would make with Mr. Koch would fall under WP:NOR and constitute original research. Wiki is a compilation of published sources, not a journalistic forum (even if conducted under quality conditions.)

I too suspect what you stated to be true. If you'll notice in the source I added, Beechem himself stated in a 1965 public lecture that "I am obliged to say that in years gone by, work in my laboratory could have been criticized on ethical grounds." I would be fine adding that statement within the main text, possibly even the introduction. The rest of the material that falls under WP:CITE criteria for secondary/tertiary sources could fall under the controversies section. I guess I'm just more cautious in placing less well-sourced statements within the intro and main body of the article. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• ... he even travelled to Boston to get an official statement from Boston Med (which was also shown in the documentary)

See, this is part of what bothers me. The supposed CIA citation is from "Harvard Medical School", so the documentary author travelled to "Boston Med" to interview people. But Boston Medical is a Tufts affiliated program, not Harvard.. (I know, I did my intern year there. If you don't believe me, check it out yourself.) These sources just don't add up. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

@ Boston Med / Harvard: Ok, this was my fault as I didnt know that there are different faculties. In the documentary he went to BOSTON to a medical faculty where Beecher teached, so I shortened it to Boston Med. But when you see my first postings about this topic (from 13th July) I stated correctly "Harvard Medical School" which is obviously where he went to. So sorry if I used an in-appropiate abrevation, I am not an US-student ;-)

@ Koch / research: Thats not research, thats just a verification of facts that a journalist already published in German. But as YOU dont accept a German source, you cannot - at the same time - forbid to ask the journalist who published it to send the original material in English so that you can check it. Because otherwise it would be really chauvinistic, as - in a nutshell - it would prevent any information which was not published in English to be included in the Anglophone Wikipedia (which would be vice-versa impossible in the German-speaking Wikipedia). This would give the Anglophone medias a too strong power and would prevent the revealing of facts which are not in their interest. As in the Beecher story there are logically only two countries involved: USA and Germany. So it would be unfair to ban German media information, and have a POV which is only influnced by US-media (and their interest to report, or not report, about such storys). -- Rfortner 11:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your statement on verification is fair. Perhaps we can have him post copies of the document in publicly accessible fashion. I think that would be acceptable by WP:CITE criteria. What is crucial, though, is that the verification be publically accessible. Other editors need to be able to verify this for themselves, not just take your or my word that we've verified it. Djma12 ^(talk) 15:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, thats more a technical question, because I dont know how he should do this (as it looks like he doesn't have his own media, he makes books and films). But maybe the documents he used are accessible for the public as they have been officially declassified and such documents are often published in the Internet. This would be the best case, because then he can tell us the exact location where they can be found and the article can refer to them.

This would be best. If we can't find a public repository where individuals could personally verify this source, I think we'll need to remove it per WP:CITE standards. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case, you mentioned the idea of a "controversary"-section which I would ask you to begin - as you obviously have more experience with this in the Anglophone Wikipedia. The section I wrote is already written in this way, as it starts with "In 2007 German medias uncovered that Beecher ...", so it is clear that till now no US-media has verified the story, but that the accusation has been made by a public TV-channel of a democratic western-european country which is known for its independent but serious coverage. -- Rfortner 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added the "controversy" section per our discussion. I've added a "reference" tag unto it until we have some verification of these de-classified documents. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will contact him via Email. If we can get the documents, I am sure there is a way to make them available for everybody. ... I have clarified some parts in the controversy-section (and I think the "post-war" in the last sentence was wrong or mistakeable, wasn't it?). By the way: The documents which have been shown in the documentary only concerned his participation in the CIA-torture-program, but the specific case with the injection from 1953 was - as far as I can remember - revealed by a witness. We should get his name, I will also ask Mr. Koch for it, as I have forgotten it. -- Rfortner 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent discussion! Your civility, reasoned analysis and efforts to uphold wikipedia rules are a welcome change from some other article discussions :-) —Parhamr 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even if I would not accept this strict application of rules in all cases without a debate on principles (especially concerning the citation of non-Anglophone-sources in a case were obviously no Anglophone source is currently available), as I am generally unhappy about such attitudes in the international scientific community, irrespective the fact that English is unquestioned the "lingua franca" in sciences (see my edits in a topic concerning my scientific "home ground": SWEBOK, especially edit 1 and edit 2).

But in this delicate case I understand the concerns and try to do my best to support you with facts. And I even had a benefit from it: Due to some related research about the ethics-in-medicine-topic I saw, that there was a famous case in 1935 (Fortner v. Koch) and that my family name is not as rare in the world as I thought, so maybe there is a remote relative in the states ;-) -- Rfortner 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I recently posted this posed question on the Wiki Reliable Sources forum to see what the consensus is. The German documentary is acceptable per WP:RS but an unpublished document in archive is not. (Unless we can get the document posted somehow.) However, it is still fair to state that the documentary referenced these documents, we just can't cite it directly. Per that discussion, I am removing the CIA document citation until it is publicly available. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I am a little bit confused, as it was not me who posted the CIA-document reference (would be quite tricky to watch a TV-documentary late at night and write down even the exact nr. of CIA-documents). Therefore I wonder where it came from and from where this other editor knew this - very exact - reference?!? -- Rfortner 16:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: The reference was added with this edit by Parhamr. Surprised, where he had the reference from ... -- Rfortner 16:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good question. I no longer remember exactly where that came from. —Parhamr 17:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"AAAh ... Schurke!" (sorry, Austrian German word-joke, hardly translateable but roughly it means something like "sly fox") ... and I thought you have special sources as you stated yourself that you are a distant relative. And your edit was quite precise with the exact number and date of this document, so I didn't believe that you faked it. Or did you post something you were supposed not to (and remembered this obligation later)? Sorry to ask such a question, but your edits are too serious, interesting and important to swep them under the carpet. -- Rfortner 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I had found that source while looking through the references of his 1999 biography by Dr. Kopp. While I wrote it truthfully and neutrally, it certainly lacks enough context to be verifiable now. I have no clue what my exact relation to this man is; Harriet Beecher Stowe is (as I remember) my second cousin, four times removed.

Your questions are welcome: I have no special sources, that would certainly be improper. —Parhamr 00:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case the reference came from a serious source (the biography by Dr. Kopp), so at least we should keep this information (exact title, date and ID of the document) somewhere at the end of the article, even if we dont use it as a concrete reference. Because maybe one day the document is aceesible, or at least it will give researchers a hint where they can search for "further" information. -- Rfortner 12:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it is still not publicly verifiable, it still doesn't fit WP:CITE criteria. As was alluded to earlier in the forum discussion, we can speak about the documents, but we can't include them in the article, even if its not within the text. Why don't we include it within the talk section under a "Help Needed to Verify" section? Djma12 ^(talk) 13:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

When Dr. Kopp was able to access it, it is not fully "inaccessible", it is just not accessible via Internet. And it seems quite relevant, so why should we hide it on the talk page? Also I dont see the connex to the mentioned criteria, as I proposed to integrate it in the Bibliography-section - as a source, not as a citation! -- Rfortner 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Henry Knowles Unangst Beecher changed his name legally to Beecher in his 20s I believe. It is claimed he stated it was because he admired Harriet Beecher Stowe and Henry Ward Beecher.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.232.120 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 26 April 2014‎

Answer by Mr. Koch & details about the documentation

News from Mr. Koch: The US-historian Alfred W. McCoy is working on a book (or article) named: "Science in Dachau's Shadow: Hebb, Beecher, and the Development of CIA Psychological Torture and Modern Medical Ethics" - which also covers the documents that Mr. Koch had used (that can be found in the National Archives). Mr. Koch himself will publish a book (also covering the Beecher-story) next January. I have to check all the facts, then I will post more about his email-answer, as he also advised me about some citation-errors in details concerning the mescalin-injection. -- Rfortner 13:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Due to the email-contact with Mr. Koch I have found out that the TV-Documentation from July 2007 is also available at Youtube split in 5 parts (as it is the Original, consequently in German):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GtN_U9-rEI

If anybody speaks German he/she can see it, and I will study it carefully to correct possible citation errors. ... in a while ... -- Rfortner 13:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PART 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GtN_U9-rEI) starts with Abu Graib, shows the research for documents in the National Archives and introduces Alfred W. McCoy as US-expert for CIA-methods & experiments.

PART 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IhJc7DgzFc) introduces and ends with KUBARK.

PART 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDlevcWM8is) introduces the CIA-experiments in Wester-Germany in the 1950's, Camp King, the "rough boys" of the CIA, the Villa Schuster in Kronberg, CIA-Scientist Frank Olson and a case with divers experiments in Villa Schuster on the 13th June 1952 (without letal end and without mentioning Beecher).

PART 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNN6dSD5dwc) leads to the cellar of Villa Schuster in Kronberg where "final experiments" where performed. Norman Cournoyer, a close friend of Frank Olson, states that Frank Olson had reported about "final experiments" (with letal endings) after his last trip to Villa Schuster, and that he (Frank Olson) has seen the death of a person there. Shortly after Mr. Olson died in a mysterious way (also described in the TV-documentary about Project Artichoke). ... Now Koch raises the question, who where the scientists that supported these experiments, Dr. Beechers name pops up for the first time (can bee seen on a document at time-score 3:13) and Koch states, that Beecher tendered himself to the CIA as an expert on torture-experiments. September 1951 Beecher was in Camp King for the first time, to prepare human experiments. He deliberated with the "rough boys" and recommended to test various drugs. At time score 4:20 Alfred W. McCoy states, that Dr. Beecher was deeply involved in those experiments, that he was "in the center" of those experiments. At 5:41 you see that Beecher got the reports about human experiments in NS-concentration camps to evaluate them, in this case Dachau concentration camp (about which Details are shown in the next scenes). At 8:00 it is stated, that one of the worst experiments in Dachau where those with the drug Mescalin, an that Dr. Beecher was strongly interested in their results.

PART 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mh1jdLHk5o) continues with Dachau, Mescalin and the interest of the CIA in those methods. A copy of the Dachau-report made by the US-military can be found today in the medical library of Harvard - coming from the inheritance of Dr. Beecher. At 1:10 it is stated that Dr. Beecher continued the Mescalin-experiments of SS-physicians (on behalf of the CIA). January 1953 there is a letal accident at the psychatric institute of New York. Upon recommendation of Dr. Beecher a depressive patient gets injected with Mescalin, and dies shortly after. At the same time Beecher submitts to get more money for drug-experiments, mostly with cancer patients in the end-stage. At time-score 3:00 you see Mr. Koch travelling to Harvard to examine what they knew about Beechers experiments. At 3:49 the public advocacy of Beechher in the 1960's AGAINST human experiemnts is mentioned, escpecially his article from 1966. At 4:50 Prof. Daniel Wikler - a mecial-ethics expert at Harvard - is interviewed and states that Harvard cannot judge about Beechers experiments, as they are still secret or the documents got lost. At 5:20 a "Dr. Fischer" working at the medical department of Camp King is introduced, which was the alias-name for Walter Schreiber - SS-physician in a concentration camp. At 5:40 it s stated, that Beecher met Schreiber several times in Kronberg for an "exchange of ideas". At 6:00 a report is shown where Beecher describes Schreiber as "intelligent and cooperative". At 6:10 Harvard-ethics-prof. Wikler judges about this contact.

At the end the documentation summarises, that Beecher studied NS-techniques, was reponsible for their testing by the rough-boys of the CIA in Camp King / Villa Schuster which supported the writing of KUBARK (and then goes on to the current methods of the CIA and american soldiers in Abu Ghraib).

So about the mescalin-injection in Kronberg: Beecher didnt do it himself, but he was scientifically responsible for those experiments in Kronberg where people died. -- Rfortner 15:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I found out with the help of Google, the paper "Science in Dachau's Shadow: Hebb, Beecher, and the Development of CIA Psychological Torture and Modern Medical Ethics" by Alfred W. McCoy will be published next month (October) in the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. -- Rfortner 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

More careful wording for Biographies

I think the word "prove" is a bit strong for the statement, given that we don't have any solid verification of the documents, nor any independent verification for this TV documentary. It is definitely worth mentioning, but "state" or "claim" is much more neutral than "prove". Djma12 ^(talk) 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that I have no problem with what you are trying to say in the "heritage" section, but what do you mean? I think this is a possible translation issue, but I don't quite understand what you're trying to express with "From the heritage of Dr. Beecher, the library of Harvard Medical School." Regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 23:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It means, that the report did not come to the library "accidentally" or by any other source, it came to them as part of the heritage (German term: "Nachlass", maybe also translated as "inheritance") of Dr. Beecher. And the documentary points out, that this is the only copy accessible in a public library, which is also discussed as "curious", showing that someone there had a real interest in such studies. To the facts from the documentation:

In PART 4, time score 05:41 you can see the cover letter of the war department, with which they sent the Dachau-report to Dr. Beecher.

In PART 5, time score 00:27 the Beecher-heritage ("Nachlass") is mentioned as source of the document.

-- Rfortner 00:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I've reworded the section to say basically the same thing in a more readable way. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, as it is your native language I am sure your English is better than mine, but maybe one day I can correct one of your edits in German ;-) ... For the rest I would propose to wait what Dr. McCoy will publish next month and then we see which kind of facts be brought - at last a source in English (for what you where asking for). -- Rfortner 09:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible English citation

I am currently in a class about science and ethics; we are getting closer to English-language citations for Dr. Beecher's alleged ethical violations. The last lecture covered two studies he was involved in: Willowbrook State School's hepatitis studies and a Brooklyn, NY Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital's cancer studies in 1963. We might now be able to find specific sources. —Parhamr 16:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So maybe you have access to this article by Dr. McCoy (which I mentioned last month), because it has already been published but I am not willing to pay anything for reading it. Here is the link to the article which has (unfortunately) no abstract:

"Science in Dachau's shadow: HEBB, Beecher, and the development of CIA psychological torture and modern medical ethics" by Alfred W. McCoy -- Rfortner 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, my med library subscription has access to this article. There are several pages dedicated to Beecher. Here are some excerpts that may be relevant to this article:

• ...the CIA’s development of psychological torture can be reduced to a narrative of competing approaches by two titans of twentieth-century medical science—Henry K. Beecher’s drug experimentation versus Donald O. Hebb’s behavioral methods (Oshinsky, 2005, pp. 4–7, 174–187; Slotten, 2004, pp. 1–9; Shotland & Yeo, 1996, pp. 1–44; Hellman, 1998, pp. xii–xv). For both, there was a fortuitous convergence between the CIA’s mind-control project and their own research trajectories, providing them, at the cost of the ethical compromises inherent in classified work, needed funding for the human experimentation central to their research and rising reputations...
• Reflecting this era’s ethical ethos, all the behavioral researchers cited in this paper with ties to secret research — Baldwin, Beecher, Hebb, Milgram, Wexler, Mendelson, Leiderman, and Solomon — conducted experiments whose success entailed infliction of psychological pain on human subjects in violation of the Nuremberg Code.
• In September 1951, just three months after the CIA’s secret Montreal meeting, Dr. Henry K. Beecher, the Dorr Professor of Anesthesiology at Harvard University, crossed the Atlantic in a determined search for drugs that would prize open the human mind for interrogation. At home and abroad for over a decade, Beecher pursued this secret military research, testing powerful psychotropic drugs, mescaline and LSD, on unwitting human subjects, and thus drinking deep from Dachau’s poisoned well...
• Although we cannot be certain that SS-Hauptsturmfuhrer Ploetner’s report inspired his quest, in September 1951 Dr. Beecher criss-crossed Europe for research “on the subject of the ‘ego-depressant’ drugs, usually called truth serum in the newspapers,” paying particular attention to the Gestapo’s drug of choice, mescaline (Beecher, 21 October 1951). Reflecting the Anglo-American cooperation forged at Montreal, at his first stop, England, Beecher had access to dozens of top scientists. At the Ministry of Defense, Dr. B. A. R. Gater gave him a “bibliography on several drugs considered as promising,” with eight citations for mescaline and fourteen for LSD.
• Indeed, at Heidelberg, Dr. Beecher was sharply reminded of the immorality of his research, from a medical perspective, when the Chief U.S. Surgeon for Europe, General Guy B. Denit, advised him “that as a physician under the Geneva Convention he [Denit] could have nothing officially to do with the use of drugs for the purposes in mind and turned me over to G-II.”

My apologies for claiming that the original additions were unsubstantiated vandalism. Now that we have a publicly verifiable source detailing Beecher's involvement, this should definitely be included in detail. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your last words, even if an apology was not officially necessary, because (after a first irritation) I always recognised your good faith! The only argument which made me "emotional" was the English-sources-necessary argument, because many US-American medias are widely known here in Europe for being biased and "right-wing" oriented (Fox etc.), so I don't want THEM to controll, which information is proven enough to be part of the Anglophone Wikipedia.

Overall, it was a real challenge for me, my scientific attitude and also for my English to "match" with you both (but as I wrote my Master Thesis in English this summer, the challenge was even more interesting - and you may forgive my sentence building which is typical for a Germanophone person).

So in the end it was a real fun and a good example of successful transatlantic cooperation to solve tricky problems in Wikipedia ;-) -- Rfortner 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Need quotation on talk to verify.

There is still at least one reference that has the above note attached to it. What can I do to verify it? Should I transcribe relevant sections of the documentary in German and translate it to English? --Dwi Secundus (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

hnotib is thiom bhonk is hopd hopa is gort mopdf is notyk 133.252.366.002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.69.149.170 (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

informations in English

Hi i'm a student from switzerland and i'm writing an essay about dr.beechers drug experiments in germany, i've read the discussion and thought, hey i may could help a little so here is a link to a english document about beecher: http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/ikrs/KRIM2950/h11/undervisningsmateriale/McCoy.pdf and another one: http://www.csahq.org/pdf/bulletin/LSD_58_1.pdf

i wrote Koch a mail and he helpt me with sending me orriginal documents of beecher and the cia, he has a lot of copies, so may you ask him, he could help i think, so have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.138.5 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I wrote Koch also en email and he gave me all documents. I've uploaded them to commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Beecher_Report But I'm not sure, of Beecher Report is the operation name. There was also Operation ARTICHOKE, but imho there is a other focus. --Unterstrichmoepunterstrich (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry K. Beecher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20001119013500/http://www.asahq.org/NEWSLETTERS/1999/09_99/beecher0999.html to http://www.asahq.org/Newsletters/1999/09_99/beecher0999.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319072156/http://csahq.org/pdf/bulletin/LSD_58_1.pdf to http://csahq.org/pdf/bulletin/LSD_58_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)