Peacepink

Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n10/full/nn1324.html

Disturbing on so many levels. In this thread I'm wanting to explore research methodolgy and the failiar of the checks and balences that are supposidly built into the system. This will follow from WW2 to the present.

I want to explore some of the language tricks used such as blanket statements as well as some of the reasoning behind the current intrest in psychosurgery.


And no I'm not gonna worry to much about spelling. :)

Views: 173

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

http://wikis.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php/Deception_in_Social_Research#Th...

Good overview of the use of deception and manipulation in Social Research. But I'm interested in the Belmont Report:
The Belmont Report

Informed Consent

"Because of reports of abuse of human subjects in research, especially in biomedical experiments during the Second World War, codes of conduct were developed to ensure that human research was being conducted in an ethical manner. The Belmont Report was published in 1972 and summarizes the basic ethical principles identified by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The principle of "Respect for Persons" requires that subjects be informed of the research project and that they have the opportunity to choose what should and should not happen to them. Information generally given to the subjects includes the research procedure, study purposes, and risks and anticipated benefits. The subject is allowed to ask questions about the study, and must also be allowed to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences.[3] "

Do Not Harm

"The principle of “Benefice” in the Belmont Report gives two obligations to research: (1) do not harm and (2) maximize the possible benefits of the research and minimize the possible harms of the research.[3] This brings up the question of how much harm should be allowed, especially when the projected benefit is great for society. Where to draw the line varies among individual researchers. No "black and white" answer of what is right and wrong exists. Guidelines help lead researchers in the best direction, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) is set up to judge if one’s research is ethical or not, and whether or not to allow the research to be done. Generally, harm is considered minimal if the subject experiences emotions that she or he would encounter in everyday life."

To many of us "human research subjects" reading this explaination of the Belmont report reminds me of Article 58 of the Soviet
Constitution. Under which 50 million people persihed in the Gulags.
Dehumanization
From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Contents

* 1 Concept
* 2 Example / Application - Real-Life
* 3 Example / Application - Columbine
* 4 References

Concept

According to Baron and Richardson (1994), dehumanization occurs when an individual views another person in negative ways, which leads to the belief that they are undeserving of the respect and kindness usually afforded to another person. It is as if that individual is compared to being nonhuman (Haslam, Kashima, Loughnan, Shi, & Suitner 2008). In comparing groups under the same situation, Esses, Veenvliet, Hodson, and Mihic (2008) state that, for example, if group B is seen as failing to uphold values belonging to group A, then group B must be immoral and less than human. This results in group B being less deserving of humane treatment. The fate of the members of group B is less relevant to group A, and their interests may be ignored. The implication is then that dehumanization of a target increases aggressive behavior because dehumanized group members have no moral standards applied to them (Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006). Bandura (2002) adds that strangers can be more easily depersonalized than acquaintances because of a lack of moral obligation to try and comprehend a stranger.

There are three different ways in which people are dehumanized. Haslam, et al. (2008) points out that people can be compared to animals, in which uniquely human attributes are denied and the person is described as being coarse, uncultured, amoral, irrational, and childlike. Bandura (2002) adds that attributing demonic or bestial qualities to a person also makes them less than human. A second way in which people are dehumanized is by comparing a person to a machine (i.e., "mechanistic dehumanization"), in which human attributes are removed, and the person is perceived to be unfeeling, cold, passive, rigid, and lacking individuality (Haslam, et al., 2008). By doing this, the person is denied of emotionality and desires (Haslam, et al., 2008). Controlling or manipulative interpersonal relationships have been identified as one antecedent of mechanistic dehumanization (Moller & Deci, 2010).

The third way that a person can be dehumanized is by perceiving the other person as being the enemy. Esses, et al. (2008) state that the enemy is constructed to exemplify manipulation and is described as being opportunistic, evil, immoral, and motivated by greed. The enemy is shown to take advantage of the weak, which in turn justifies any action taken against the enemy (Esses, et al., 2008). Esses, et al. (2008) go on to describe the barbarian image, which includes the perceptions of a ruthless, crude, and unsophisticated individual that is willing to cheat to reach glory.

The consequence of constructing these dehumanizing forms is the inequality that is brought on as a result. It can be seen that those who support the existence of social dominance view the world as a competitive place where only the toughest survive and are willing to discriminate against other groups in order to reach or uphold group dominance. What this does is legitimize entitlement and the dehumanization of others (Esses, et al., 2008).

In order to combat dehumanization, it is essential to do the opposite of what it takes to instill dehumanization. Moshman (2007) states that in dehumanization, individuals are interpreted as containing elements of a subhuman, nonhuman, or anti-human group. In order to not view others in those terms, then the two groups must unite and be intimate with one another so as to see the humanistic qualities that each possess. The reason for this is because it is difficult to mistreat humanized people without risking personal distress (Bandura, 2002).

Another way to counteract possible conflict is to keep both groups separate. Moshman (2007) states that there is no need to try to dehumanize another group provided that that group stays in one location, and the other group stays in another. The only problem with this suggestion is that no matter how hard it can be tried, there is bound to be trouble. This is because human groups often get in each other’s way and fail to meet each other’s expectations (Moshman, 2007).
Example / Application - Real-Life

The situation in Abu Ghraib left a black mark in the history of the United States. While there have existed cases like it, the Abu Ghraib scandal became a national story because of the implications that the United States was condoning the use of torture to maintain control of the prison. Zimbardo (2008) states that the military police (MPs) at Abu Ghraib placed bags over the prisoner’s heads, which relegated them to being anonymous. The prisoners were treated as strangers, which resulted in the lack or moral obligation to care for the prisoners. Zimbardo (2008) also pointed out that the detainees were forced to suffer through abusive acts, of which include the following: physical violence, forcing the male detainees to masturbate on camera, putting dog collars on detainees, using military dogs to frighten detainees, forcibly arranging naked male detainees into piles, obligating the men to wear women’s pink panties either as underwear or as caps, and threatening male and female detainees with rape (Zimbardo, 2008). The MPs forced the prisoners to internalize the meaning of being an animal because the prisoners were pushed to act as if they were amoral, uncultured, and irrational. Even Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, believed that the detainees in Abu Ghraib should be treated “like dogs” (Zimbardo, 2008). To make matters worst, the MPs took pictures of dead prisoners to keep as souvenirs and trophies of accomplishment (Zimbardo, 2008) The MPs in Abu Ghraib destroyed whatever sense of humanity the detainees had by making them non-human. It was implanted in the minds of the MPs that the detainees had no moral standards applied to them, so it became easier to aggress against them.

Dehumanization could not have been used to prevent violent behavior because it was the catalyst that potentially leads to violence. Now, could there have been an absence of dehumanization within the MPs? No, because as Zimbardo (2008) explains, the conditions of the prison were unbearable, with the MPs working 12 hour shifts in the hot weather of Iraq. The facilities were not maintained, there were ongoing shootings everyday, and there was utter chaos with the lack of both organization and leadership (Zimbardo, 2008). The MPs were in a foreign land where they were not given instruction on how to deal with running the prison. Eventually, the MPs were going to make an enemy out of someone. It was just easier to pick on the incarcerated that they had.
Example / Application - Columbine

The Columbine tragedy was one of the worst school shootings in American history. One of the underlying factors was that Eric Harris had a grand superiority complex, once stating that he felt like God (Toppo, 2009, para.13 and 22). So, not only did he not see the victims as humans, but Harris saw himself as superior to everyone. He did not believe that the victims deserved to live because he was, in his eyes, the ultimate decider of their fate. It is evident that Harris dehumanized the victims that he attacked and killed because he assumed the role of containing the highest moral standard, while his victims had no moral values. It became easier for him to take out his aggression on those that he perceived to not have his morality. There are three instances where this holds to be true. Toppo (2009, para. 2) reported that Harris and Klebold bragged about picking on freshmen and fags. During the shooting, Harris and Klebold taunted Isaiah Shoels with derogatory racial comments before killing him (Columbine High School massacre, n.d., para 28). Valeen Schnurr was shot when she vowed her belief in God (Chen, 2009, para. 13).

Harris and Klebold also viewed their victims as non human, with it seeming as if the two were playing a video game. When John Savage, an acquaintance of Klebold, asked Harris and Klebold what they were doing, Klebold responded by saying that they were just killing people (Columbine High School massacre, n.d., para. 32). James (2009, para. 23) stated that Harris and Klebold randomly fired at students, to the point where they grew bored of the situation. This got to the point where Klebold joked that they should have started knifing people because it would be more fun (Columbine High School massacre, n.d., para. 34). Toppo (2009, para. 42) revealed that Harris and Klebold’s original plan was to pick off survivors with their weapons who had survived the bomb explosion of the building. All the previous examples point out that Harris and Klebold did not see the humanity in their victims. The victims were the (non human) instrument to Harris’ and Klebold’s road to infamy. Dehumanization could not have been used to prevent this tragedy.
References

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101-119. doi:10.1080/0305724022014322.

Baron, R.A. & Richardson, D.R. (1994). Human Aggression. United States: Plenum Publishing Corporation.

Castano, E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2006). Not quite human: Infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 804-818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.804.

Chen, S. (2009). Debunking the myths of Columbine, 10 years later. Retrieved May 3, 2010 from cnn.com: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/20/columbine.myths/

Columbine High School massacre. (n.d.). Retrieved May 3, 2010 from wikipedia.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

Esses, V., Veenvliet, S., Hodson, G., & Mihic, L. (2008). Justice, morality, and the dehumanization of refugees. Social Justice Research, 21(1), 4-25. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0058-4.

Haslam, N., Kashima, Y., Loughnan, S., Shi, J., & Suitner, C. (2008). Subhuman, inhuman, and superhuman: Contrasting humans with nonhumans in three cultures. Social Cognition, 26(2), 248-258. doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.248.

James, S.D. (2009). Surviving Columbine: what we got wrong. Retrieved May 3, 2010 from abcnews.go.com: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=7363898&page=1

Moller, A. C., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Interpersonal control, dehumanization, and violence: A self-determination theory perspective. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 41-53.

Moshman, D. (2007). Us and them: Identity and genocide. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 7(2), 115-135. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Toppo, G. (2009). 10 years later, the real story behind Columbine. Retrieved May 3, 2010 from usatoday.com: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm

Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. United States: Random House Publishing Group.

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Dehumanization

Dehumanization as well as a few other nasty tricks are employed during a Manipulative/Deceptive Human Subject Research project in Social Psychology.
I'm not really feeling that "Do no Harm" part in The Belmont Report.
Microchip Implants:
Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?


Focus on the resulting tissue damage assosicated with Veri Chip implants.

"“At the National ID Expo in Kansas City, Arkansas Animal Producer’s Association President Michael Steenbergen asked, 'What safety studies have been conducted on the chips that are inserted into animals?' His question was met with total silence. Did these manufacturers not know, or were they unwilling to admit that research has confirmed that implanted microchips cause cancer?” (15)"
Thanks for this. Depressing but very informative.



Jay Sinn said:
Dehumanization
From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Contents

* 1 Concept
* 2 Example / Application - Real-Life
* 3 Example / Application - Columbine
* 4 References

Concept

According to Baron and Richardson (1994), dehumanization occurs when an individual views another person in negative ways, which leads to the belief that they are undeserving of the respect and kindness usually afforded to another person. It is as if that individual is compared to being nonhuman (Haslam, Kashima, Loughnan, Shi, & Suitner 2008). In comparing groups under the same situation, Esses, Veenvliet, Hodson, and Mihic (2008) state that, for example, if group B is seen as failing to uphold values belonging to group A, then group B must be immoral and less than human. This results in group B being less deserving of humane treatment. The fate of the members of group B is less relevant to group A, and their interests may be ignored. The implication is then that dehumanization of a target increases aggressive behavior because dehumanized group members have no moral standards applied to them (Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006). Bandura (2002) adds that strangers can be more easily depersonalized than acquaintances because of a lack of moral obligation to try and comprehend a stranger.

There are three different ways in which people are dehumanized. Haslam, et al. (2008) points out that people can be compared to animals, in which uniquely human attributes are denied and the person is described as being coarse, uncultured, amoral, irrational, and childlike. Bandura (2002) adds that attributing demonic or bestial qualities to a person also makes them less than human. A second way in which people are dehumanized is by comparing a person to a machine (i.e., "mechanistic dehumanization"), in which human attributes are removed, and the person is perceived to be unfeeling, cold, passive, rigid, and lacking individuality (Haslam, et al., 2008). By doing this, the person is denied of emotionality and desires (Haslam, et al., 2008). Controlling or manipulative interpersonal relationships have been identified as one antecedent of mechanistic dehumanization (Moller & Deci, 2010).

The third way that a person can be dehumanized is by perceiving the other person as being the enemy. Esses, et al. (2008) state that the enemy is constructed to exemplify manipulation and is described as being opportunistic, evil, immoral, and motivated by greed. The enemy is shown to take advantage of the weak, which in turn justifies any action taken against the enemy (Esses, et al., 2008). Esses, et al. (2008) go on to describe the barbarian image, which includes the perceptions of a ruthless, crude, and unsophisticated individual that is willing to cheat to reach glory.

The consequence of constructing these dehumanizing forms is the inequality that is brought on as a result. It can be seen that those who support the existence of social dominance view the world as a competitive place where only the toughest survive and are willing to discriminate against other groups in order to reach or uphold group dominance. What this does is legitimize entitlement and the dehumanization of others (Esses, et al., 2008).

In order to combat dehumanization, it is essential to do the opposite of what it takes to instill dehumanization. Moshman (2007) states that in dehumanization, individuals are interpreted as containing elements of a subhuman, nonhuman, or anti-human group. In order to not view others in those terms, then the two groups must unite and be intimate with one another so as to see the humanistic qualities that each possess. The reason for this is because it is difficult to mistreat humanized people without risking personal distress (Bandura, 2002).

Another way to counteract possible conflict is to keep both groups separate. Moshman (2007) states that there is no need to try to dehumanize another group provided that that group stays in one location, and the other group stays in another. The only problem with this suggestion is that no matter how hard it can be tried, there is bound to be trouble. This is because human groups often get in each other’s way and fail to meet each other’s expectations (Moshman, 2007).
Example / Application - Real-Life

The situation in Abu Ghraib left a black mark in the history of the United States. While there have existed cases like it, the Abu Ghraib scandal became a national story because of the implications that the United States was condoning the use of torture to maintain control of the prison. Zimbardo (2008) states that the military police (MPs) at Abu Ghraib placed bags over the prisoner’s heads, which relegated them to being anonymous. The prisoners were treated as strangers, which resulted in the lack or moral obligation to care for the prisoners. Zimbardo (2008) also pointed out that the detainees were forced to suffer through abusive acts, of which include the following: physical violence, forcing the male detainees to masturbate on camera, putting dog collars on detainees, using military dogs to frighten detainees, forcibly arranging naked male detainees into piles, obligating the men to wear women’s pink panties either as underwear or as caps, and threatening male and female detainees with rape (Zimbardo, 2008). The MPs forced the prisoners to internalize the meaning of being an animal because the prisoners were pushed to act as if they were amoral, uncultured, and irrational. Even Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, believed that the detainees in Abu Ghraib should be treated “like dogs” (Zimbardo, 2008). To make matters worst, the MPs took pictures of dead prisoners to keep as souvenirs and trophies of accomplishment (Zimbardo, 2008) The MPs in Abu Ghraib destroyed whatever sense of humanity the detainees had by making them non-human. It was implanted in the minds of the MPs that the detainees had no moral standards applied to them, so it became easier to aggress against them.

Dehumanization could not have been used to prevent violent behavior because it was the catalyst that potentially leads to violence. Now, could there have been an absence of dehumanization within the MPs? No, because as Zimbardo (2008) explains, the conditions of the prison were unbearable, with the MPs working 12 hour shifts in the hot weather of Iraq. The facilities were not maintained, there were ongoing shootings everyday, and there was utter chaos with the lack of both organization and leadership (Zimbardo, 2008). The MPs were in a foreign land where they were not given instruction on how to deal with running the prison. Eventually, the MPs were going to make an enemy out of someone. It was just easier to pick on the incarcerated that they had.
Example / Application - Columbine

The Columbine tragedy was one of the worst school shootings in American history. One of the underlying factors was that Eric Harris had a grand superiority complex, once stating that he felt like God (Toppo, 2009, para.13 and 22). So, not only did he not see the victims as humans, but Harris saw himself as superior to everyone. He did not believe that the victims deserved to live because he was, in his eyes, the ultimate decider of their fate. It is evident that Harris dehumanized the victims that he attacked and killed because he assumed the role of containing the highest moral standard, while his victims had no moral values. It became easier for him to take out his aggression on those that he perceived to not have his morality. There are three instances where this holds to be true. Toppo (2009, para. 2) reported that Harris and Klebold bragged about picking on freshmen and fags. During the shooting, Harris and Klebold taunted Isaiah Shoels with derogatory racial comments before killing him (Columbine High School massacre, n.d., para 28). Valeen Schnurr was shot when she vowed her belief in God (Chen, 2009, para. 13).

Harris and Klebold also viewed their victims as non human, with it seeming as if the two were playing a video game. When John Savage, an acquaintance of Klebold, asked Harris and Klebold what they were doing, Klebold responded by saying that they were just killing people (Columbine High School massacre, n.d., para. 32). James (2009, para. 23) stated that Harris and Klebold randomly fired at students, to the point where they grew bored of the situation. This got to the point where Klebold joked that they should have started knifing people because it would be more fun (Columbine High School massacre, n.d., para. 34). Toppo (2009, para. 42) revealed that Harris and Klebold’s original plan was to pick off survivors with their weapons who had survived the bomb explosion of the building. All the previous examples point out that Harris and Klebold did not see the humanity in their victims. The victims were the (non human) instrument to Harris’ and Klebold’s road to infamy. Dehumanization could not have been used to prevent this tragedy.
References

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101-119. doi:10.1080/0305724022014322.

Baron, R.A. & Richardson, D.R. (1994). Human Aggression. United States: Plenum Publishing Corporation.

Castano, E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2006). Not quite human: Infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 804-818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.804.

Chen, S. (2009). Debunking the myths of Columbine, 10 years later. Retrieved May 3, 2010 from cnn.com: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/20/columbine.myths/

Columbine High School massacre. (n.d.). Retrieved May 3, 2010 from wikipedia.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

Esses, V., Veenvliet, S., Hodson, G., & Mihic, L. (2008). Justice, morality, and the dehumanization of refugees. Social Justice Research, 21(1), 4-25. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0058-4.

Haslam, N., Kashima, Y., Loughnan, S., Shi, J., & Suitner, C. (2008). Subhuman, inhuman, and superhuman: Contrasting humans with nonhumans in three cultures. Social Cognition, 26(2), 248-258. doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.248.

James, S.D. (2009). Surviving Columbine: what we got wrong. Retrieved May 3, 2010 from abcnews.go.com: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=7363898&page=1

Moller, A. C., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Interpersonal control, dehumanization, and violence: A self-determination theory perspective. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 41-53.

Moshman, D. (2007). Us and them: Identity and genocide. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 7(2), 115-135. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Toppo, G. (2009). 10 years later, the real story behind Columbine. Retrieved May 3, 2010 from usatoday.com: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm

Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. United States: Random House Publishing Group.

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Dehumanization

Dehumanization as well as a few other nasty tricks are employed during a Manipulative/Deceptive Human Subject Research project in Social Psychology.
I'm not really feeling that "Do no Harm" part in The Belmont Report.
Depressing? Absolutely!
I wonder how the researchers feel when you (the subject) start to read out of the same "rules" they (the researchers) do? The problem is that researchers can't react to subjects in the matter of ethical considerations. By completely ignoring a subjects humanity its easier for a researcher to focus more on the data. By knowing the program you have impowered yourself to corrupt the data. Sour the milk, so to speak.

I don't recall giving any consent to my particular invasive research, did you?
What is the intent of Human Subject Research?
http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2...

Or try clinicaltrials.gov
I present exibit B,
http://www.uta.edu/lcampbell/research_team.htm
"This research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Our current program of research is focusing on the influence of social pain (pain caused by the disruption of interpersonal relationships) on psychological and physical health. We are examining how the influence of reliving social pain not only on experiencing pain, but also on one’s ability to self-regulate. We are also examining how personality might moderate sensitivity to social pain, namely exclusion. Third, we are also examining the overlap in neural systems between social and physical pain. We are specifically interested in how chronic pain influences reaction to future pain episodes (both social and physical). Fourth, we are looking at a special type of social pain, obesity stigmatization, and its potential influence on overweight individual's psychological health. Finally, we are looking at the mechanisms responsible for the long-term influence of chronic peer victimization on adjustment. "



Jay Sinn said:
What is the intent of Human Subject Research?
http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2...

Or try clinicaltrials.gov
"Electrically-induced fear conditioning is probably the most blunt instrument possible, encoding a very powerful, general ‘fear’ memory, and many things can make a mouse freeze. Thus, this is definitely the low-hanging fruit on the ‘reverse-engineering’ memories tree. Understanding how the information in a memory is distributed across participating neurons is going to take a more sophisticated approach and a lot more work. This result is still incredibly cool, and I’m somewhat surprised it worked by driving ChR2 with c-fos in a hundred cells in the dentate gyrus. That has pretty powerful implications for avenues by which memories can be recalled. Surely the entire memory is not encoded by only the 100 neurons that were activated! How many other neurons participate, and how does the optical stimulation activate the entire ensemble? Is it even necessary to activate the entire ensemble to drive behavior? The poster will be MOBBED. I look forward to reading the details."

http://brainwindows.wordpress.com/category/neuronal-control/
Some self notes:
the technological angle is largely exhasted but fruitfull.
HHS provides the legal framework to create surrogates who make decsions for subjects...including consent to HSR
intro slave laws applicable?
RFID GIS uni. involvement, L.E. contracts, priv. cos to take legal liability
corp. governence...term stakeholder, asset, asset tracking
relate cong. to NIH rate of return investment...5, 10, 20 yrs.
other ang. cong to NIH follow cash
Note misdirect. TI to tech to human rights violations, confused terminology, legalisms.
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=3160
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-HD-10-010.html

Purpose

"The NICHD invites all stakeholders to submit nominations for research to be prioritized in the development of the BPCA Program’s 2010-11 Priority List of Needs in Pediatric Therapeutics. The NICHD is gathering nominations for a Therapeutic Area (e.g., pediatric condition, subpopulation or setting of care) that requires further study in children as well as the particular drug, biologic, or medical device that is being recommended for study in that area. Suggested topics not related to a specific drug, biologic or device (e.g., training or research collaborations) will be considered by the NICHD outside of this framework."

Comment: The intersection of stakeholders, human subject research (children) and the NIH.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Latest Activity

JasonMxxxx posted videos
2 hours ago
Martti Koski posted a video

Former Gang Stalking Private Security Spills on Program!

(Mirror from RichieFromBoston channel) Anonymous former private security firm employee claims he worked on the program to gang stalk harass targeted individu...
4 hours ago
Stephen O' Neill posted a status
"Oh my God, the induced psychosis (mind control) I am suffering with is off the scale."
6 hours ago
ELISEO PEREZ is now friends with A marie, Miss. V. Hayson, John and Linda Smith more
7 hours ago
Robin Yan posted a blog post

After watching this video for UN Committee Against Torture...

After watching this video for UN Committee Against Torture , you must send, forward  this whole message for me.http://www.filedropper.com/srcribd123( Continued)http://www.filedropper.com/22531Or,https://gofile.io/d/D2EW3ORobin YanCanadian victim of tortureSee More
16 hours ago
deca posted videos
18 hours ago
Faride commented on deca's video
Thumbnail

Stress management

"Thanks for sharing your solution to this problem. I myself prefer using cbd thyroid now. This herbal medicine has good medicinal properties and at the same time, it is safer than conventional antidepressants. I order CDB on the website with home…"
22 hours ago
Victoria replied to Soleilmavis's discussion Petition to United Nations and Governments Worldwide to Stop Electromagnetic Mind Control Abuse and Torture
yesterday

Badge

Loading…

© 2020   Created by Soleilmavis.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service