Special Operations in Medical Research – Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SPECIAL OPERATIONS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH The Vile, Unspeakable Crimes of British Postwar Science & Medicine by Michael S. Jones First published 2004 Revised & extended 2011-2021 Latest revision: 27 April 2021 – www.somr.info – Special Operations in Medical Research 1 Contents Note on the revised text 2 PART 1 3 Introduction 4 Evidence 7 Summations 21 Analysis 26 Technical Concerns 26 Ethics 32 Consent 38 Technocracy 41 PART 2 (2004-2020) 47 MRI Evidence 48 2nd MRI Head Scan (2013) 60 Complaint to the GMC 70 Spinal MRI Scans (2015-2020) 72 Attempts on My Life 81 Complaints against the Police 98 Applications for Political Asylum 106 Concluding Remarks 115 References 123 Special Operations in Medical Research 2 Note on the revised text Part 1 of this document was first written in 2003 and published on the Internet in 2004. The document has since gone through a series of revisions and additions. To begin with it was not possible to include certain key items of evidence that have come into my possession only since December 2010. The conclusions of the earlier document were arrived at by a long process of deduction which was necessarily limited in its impetus to an array of largely historical and circumstantial details and observations, together with certain items of extant medical evidence. These conclusions were confirmed in later editions by the inclusion of further evidence in Part 2. The part of the Analysis section under the subtitle Technocracy (Part 1, pp.41-46) – in which there is some speculative discussion of the likely medical and technological imperatives that I understand must have informed the alleged illicit research program – was greatly extended in 2012, and represents the most significant revision of the original document (excluding Part 2). In revising Part 1, I have tried to remain faithful to the earlier processes of reasoning and deduction, so as not to re-write the history and structure of this document’s development since its first edition in 2003. This does not always permit of a smooth transition, for instance where it has been necessary to include references to the recent MRI evidence in parts of the document written before that evidence emerged, and where references to time periods have been revised taking into account the current date. If this should result in confusion, the responsibility is entirely my own. Part 2 originally took the form of a Postscript, added in 2011, in order to present a brief account of events occurring between 2004 and 2011. Through a series of incremental extensions, corresponding with developing events, this evolved into an Appendix – most significantly to present part of the key prima facie medical evidence (a selection of three images from my first Brain MRI scan) for the first time (see pp.48-50). It then took on its current form at the end of 2013 (the various sections of Part 2 do not form a strict chronological succession however). Evidence from a second MRI Head scan, conducted in March 2013, is also now included (see pp.60-64). The evidence added in Part 2 essentially confirms, beyond any reasonable doubt, the conclusions previously iterated in Part 1. However, at this point in time, for reasons of its extraordinary sensitivity, this evidence remains without any explicit expert corroboration – an absence which has so far stymied the prospect of initiating any process of civil or criminal litigation over my allegations (on this point, see my Concluding Remarks on pp.115-122). The identities of sensitive individuals mentioned in this document have been redacted in the current version. Special Operations in Medical Research 3 PART 1 Special Operations in Medical Research 4 Introduction The purpose of this report is to consolidate the presentation of a certain body of evidence. Much of that evidence has remained concealed now for five decades. What follows is an exposition of institutional corruption, involving a clandestine medical operation undertaken within the NHS, with corporate backing and government sanction. The case alleges the instance of a surreptitious medical intervention involving a five-year-old child, for the purposes of medical/scientific research, and undertaken within the research facilities of the North Staffordshire Infirmary/Keele University Hospital, in 1967. In more recent times, that institution has been cited for the use in its paediatric department of surreptitious surveillance techniques, as well as the use of experimental treatment in the investigation of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (‘SIDS’). These new historical allegations therefore signify what might be perceived as part of a pattern of institutional abuse, particularly in the area of paediatric medicine at North Staffordshire. The following evidence is based on a personal medical and family case-history, and is dependent on, to a large extent, my own recollection and retelling of events, events dating as far back as 1967. In addition, there is a significant amount of medical evidence, and the report attempts to show how extant medical evidence relates decisively to the unfolding of contemporaneous events. I think it important to stress at this point that the formulation of any judgment or conclusion based on the evidence here disclosed has been a theoretical possibility for me only since early in the year 2001, when certain realisations and reinterpretations of key features of the evidence first came to my understanding. Since that time it has been my preoccupation to find a way of making explicit the details of this evidence, which for any right-minded individual would signify something morally indefensible, indeed shocking, to say the least Therefore, while personally I may have held these convictions for some time, it is only now that I feel confident of being able to convey this certainty in a way that is both public and accessible. If there have been any ‘decisive moments’ during this process, one such moment would be that at some point in early 2001 my attention was drawn to a documentary television item that referred to a tonsillectomy operation. I was reminded of my own tonsillectomy at the age of five, at the North Staffs Infirmary, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, where I was born and lived until I was nine years old. The content of this documentary has no evidential bearing on my own case, but the program makers were concerned with the value of tonsillectomies in terms of their perceived medical necessity as routine responses to certain childhood ailments – frequently employed as proactive interventions upon essentially healthy children – and the relatively reduced popularity of this form of operation in recent decades. It led me to reconsider the relevance and the necessity of my own operation Special Operations in Medical Research 5 retrospectively, and to question whether the same perceived necessity would have applied had I been a child now rather than in the 1960s. These thought processes encouraged me to reflect upon and to recollect details of my childhood past which had previously concerned me only remotely. I began to recall details of my family history and of the conduct and roles of certain family members at stages in my early years with renewed significance. At around the time of this television documentary there were numerous other reports, in the press and on television, involving botched surgical operations and sundry ethical transgressions within the NHS, in particular the scandal at Alder Hey, involving the illegal stockpiling of the organs of deceased children for the purposes of medical research. Amongst this glut of negative publicity surrounding the NHS, as well as questions regarding the conduct of certain members of my family, both in connection with my own operation, and with respect to the untimely death of my father during the year immediately following it, I was encouraged to contemplate the fact of my tonsillectomy in a rather different light. I began to wonder about its legitimacy, for its necessity has never been satisfactorily explained to me, neither by a doctor, nor by either of my parents. There is only a barely intelligible reference to this operation in my medical records (the initials “T/AS”, written in the margin, and which appear may have been added retrospectively). There are several references to my visits to the GP during these months which mention tonsillitis and various throat illnesses, but these reports show a remarkable consistency of these symptoms both before and after the operation. There are several references specifically to tonsillitis occurring after the operation to remove them! When I recently consulted my mother about the operation, it was clear from her response that she does not now, and most likely has never understood the necessity of the operation in medical terms, and remains unable or unwilling to inform me about the issue.* In view of this and in the context of all the other reports of what appeared at times as the sinister practices of certain employees of the NHS engaged in clandestine activities, but within the framework of routine medical practice, the question of the legitimacy of my own operation became re-emphasised, this being the only occasion where I have had surgery under general anaesthetic. Due to the significant gap in historical viewpoints, this inquiry has been no simple undertaking. This gap – now fifty-four years – has meant that it has been extremely difficult for me to acquire substantial first-hand evidence, and the full evidence will indeed take time to emerge (crucial prima facie evidence is now revealed in Part 2 of this document, and at: http://somr.info/report). It is true that there were many aspects of my physical and * My mother died in May 2014. In this revision of Part 1 of the report, although references to time periods have generally been updated to reflect the current date, for reasons of clarity I have preserved the temporal sense in which it was first written in 2003 of speaking of my mother as she was at that point, living.