COMACIDE-MURDER (GENOCIDE) BY VENTILATOR (protected by the FED's Cindy Chung)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"BRAIN-DEATH" IS KIDNAP...MEDICAL TERRORISM/MURDER BEGINS WITH YOUR OWN PERSONAL CARE PHYSICIAN (PCP)...ARREST TRUMP FOR FEMICIDE...TRUMP HEADS UP FEMICIDE RING OF 93 "FEDERAL" PROSECUTORS...RITA REVOLUTION...93 "FEDERAL" PROSECUTORS ARE THE ROOT OF ALL TERROR...CNN FUCKS UP...MEDICAL KIDNAP/GENOCIDE (REAL TERROR) IN THE U.S. SINCE 1963...THE BRADY BUNCH...ARREST SCOTT W BRADY FOR HARBORING MEDICAL TERRORISTS OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA...HIDDEN HOSPITAL HOLOCAUST OF AMERICA...ARREST AHN DOCTOR DEBORRA KIM ZAISER (PER THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE DEATH PENALTY)...IRS KIDNAP BY "BRAIN-DEATH"...TYRANNY IS DEADLY IN THE USA...END THE REAL TERROR, SCOTT W BRADY ("FEDERAL" PROSECUTOR)...PITTSBURGH'S ED JITNEY SAYS "DON'T BE BRAIN-DEAD"...EMILY MARBURGER (MAYOR OF BELLEVUE 15202), ARREST DR KIM ZAISER...911 IN A NUTSHELL...93 U.S. FEDERAL PROSECUTORS PROVIDE US WITH HARVARD'S HIDDEN HOLOCAUST OF AMERICA... The Magic of Hyperventilation ©G.M. Woerlee, 2005–2018 An incident occurring during the first few weeks I started my career in anesthesia made a deep impression upon me. It was the beginning of 1977, and I had just started an anesthesiology residency in the Fremantle Hospital in Western Australia. Everything was new and unfamiliar. I asked the anesthesiologist standing next to me, why the patient who was undergoing an operation under general anesthesia was sweating so profusely. His reaction surprised me, and was one I never forgot. He grabbed the anesthetic chart, began fanning the patient and himself, and remarked: “Warm isn’t it?” It was not warm in the operating theater. The patient was simply inadequately anesthetized using the then popular Liverpool technique of anesthesia. The Liverpool technique of anesthesia was first described by Thomas Cecil Gray during 1952. It consists of the now standard method of using separate drugs to provide analgesia, muscle relaxation, and unconsciousness, while mechanically ventilating the patients with a respirator to prevent hypoxia (Gray 1952). Subsequent studies revealed that anesthetic drug dosages could be further reduced by mechanically hyperventilating patients under general anesthesia (Dundee 1952, McAleavy 1961). This latter effect is but one of the several fascinating effects of hyperventilation on the human body. In fact, hyperventilation exerts so many effects upon the body relevant to anesthesia and the functioning of the brain, that it deserves a separate discussion. So what is hyperventilation? But first, what is the role of carbon dioxide in the body? Role of carbon dioxide in the body Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of the energy-generating chemical reactions occurring within the cells of the body. Carbon dioxide produced by these chemical reactions within the cells of the body diffuses into blood which transports it into the lungs where it is eliminated from the body in exhaled air. But carbon dioxide is not just an inert waste product. It is also a vital component in the maintenance of the chemical environment of the body, because it also regulates the acidity of blood, as well as other fluids outside and inside each cell of the body. Regulation of acidity and alkalinity within the tissues of the body is extremely important. The machinery of the body is driven by myriad complex chemical reactions, and the sum total of these chemical reactions result in optimally healthy body function at a certain levels of acidity and alkalinity inside and outside the cells of the body. Acidity and alkalinity of fluids is expressed in terms of the “pH”, a scale varying from 0 to 14. A pH = 0 is maximally acid, a pH = 7 designates neutrality, being neither acid nor alkaline, while a pH =14 is maximally alkaline. A fluid is acid if the pH is less than 7, and is alkaline if the pH is greater than 7. Blood is slightly alkaline with a pH = 7.4, while the insides of cells are slightly acid with a pH = 6.9. Carbon dioxide (CO2) reacts reversibly with water (H2O) to form carbonic acid (H2CO3). But carbonic acid is unstable at body temperature and is usually in the ionized state, forming hydrogen ion (H+), and bicarbonate ion (HCO3-) as in the chemical equation below. CO2 + H2CO3 ⇔ H+ + HCO3- At any given partial pressure of carbon dioxide within the tissues of the body, a balance exists between carbon dioxide and the bicarbonate concentration. This balance between carbon dioxide and bicarbonate ion determines the pH in blood and other tissues of the body. The Henderson-Hasselbach equation used to calculate the pH in blood shows this relationship in mathematical form. pH = 6.1 + log[HCO3-] ÷ (0.03 × PCO2) The normal partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood is about 40 mmHg, and the normal bicarbonate concentration is about 24 millimoles per liter. Put these figures into the Henderson-Hasselbach equation above, and you get the pH of arterial blood which is 7.4. One more fact is needed to fully understand the effects of hyperventilation. This is the amount of bicarbonate in the body. As mentioned above, the concentration of bicarbonate in blood is 24 millimoles per liter. This is also true for all the fluids in between the cells of the body. Inside the cells of most tissues, the bicarbonate concentration is about 8 millimoles per liter. This means there is a lot of bicarbonate in the body. It takes time before such a large mass of bicarbonate ion decreases, or increases in size as a result of changes in blood carbon dioxide concentration. And it is this large mass of bicarbonate that lies at the origin of the effects of hyperventilation. So what is hyperventilation? What is hyperventilation? In practical terms, all carbon dioxide is eliminated from the body as a gas in exhaled air. When the volumes of air breathed into and out of the lungs increases above what is normal, more carbon dioxide than normal is eliminated from the body. This lowers the pressure of carbon dioxide within the body, whereby carbonic acid changes back to into water and carbon dioxide, eventually resulting in a new equilibrium between bicarbonate ion and carbon dioxide. CO2 + H2O ← H2CO3 ← H+ + HCO3- But this spontaneous chemical reaction whereby carbonic acid returns to water and carbon dioxide, is not as rapid as the speed with which carbon dioxide is removed from the body by hyperventilation. So when body carbon dioxide pressure is suddenly lowered relative to the bicarbonate concentration, the pH increases above normal because the bicarbonate concentration does not decrease as rapidly. The condition where pH of the body is increased above normal is called “alkalosis”, and all the body fluids and cells become more alkaline than normal. This effect lies at the basis of the mental effects of hyperventilation. So what are the mental effects of hyperventilation? Thresholds and mental effects of hyperventilation During the last two years of World War 2 (1939-1945), Seymour Kety and Carl Schmidt performed hyperventilation experiments upon conscientious objectors (Kety 1946). Military applications were part of the reason for these experiments. Their reasoning was that sometimes airplane crew flying at great height above Germany, might sometimes depend upon hyperventilation to prolong the period of useful consciousness, such as when oxygen delivery systems failed at high altitude, or when forced to abandon high flying aircraft after being hit by enemy fire. Regardless of these considerations, these experiments provided invaluable information regarding the manifestations of sudden onset of hyperventilation in normal young people, as well as the levels of carbon dioxide at which these manifestations occur. Kety and Schmidt found that clouding of consciousness and unconsciousness became increasingly likely when the carbon dioxide pressure fell below 30 mmHg (Kety 1946). This threshold was subsequently confirmed by Rafferty in 1992, who also found that all people developed neurological symptoms due to hyperventilation at a carbon dioxide pressure of 20 mmHg (Rafferty 1992). Mental effects of hyperventilation are very mixed. People with hyperventilation commonly describe symptoms such as disturbed mentation, impaired concentration, poor memory, and hallucinations. Feelings of depersonalization are also common, where hyperventilating persons describe sensations of unreality, or feeling everything is confused and dream-like. Visual experiences such as blurred vision, tunnel vision, flashing lights, and seeing double also occur (Evans 2005, Lum 1987, Perkin 1986). Extreme hyperventilation causes loss of consciousness in 31% of people with hyperventilation disorder (Perkin 1986), is occasionally observed during experimental hyperventilation (Kety 1946), and in some pregnant women hyperventilating due to labor pains (Burden 1994). But this is not all. Hyperventilation can sometimes even cause brain death. Death due to hyperventilation in the intensive care Even though hyperventilation is usually regarded as a mild problem, it can also cause brain death. But how? Some people with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), develop respiratory failure as a result of lung infections. Respiratory failure means their lungs malfunction so severely that insufficient oxygen is absorbed into their blood to sustain life, and their diseased lungs are unable to eliminate all the carbon dioxide produced by their bodies. These people usually die if this situation is not corrected. So they are often admitted into an intensive care unit where they undergo mechanical ventilation of their lungs. Mechanical ventilation is more efficient than normal respiration in these circumstances. It rapidly removes excess carbon dioxide from their bodies, ensures that sufficient oxygen enters their bodies, enabling these people to survive a period of temporarily worsened lung malfunction. This type of therapy has been available in many Western countries since the early 1960's. And it was during the 1960's that several reports were published of patients with severe COPD, who were admitted to an intensive care, underwent mechanical ventilation, and shortly afterwards developed unmanageable epileptic convulsions, severe brain damage, and even brain death (Kilburn 1966, Rotheram 1964). Relative hyperventilation was the cause of this dramatically tragic result of what is normally a life-saving therapy (Kilburn 1966, Rotheram 1964). Fortunately this occurs very rarely. Nonetheless, it does occur. So how can such tragedies occur? Hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia Changes in body function caused by hyperventilation explain these deaths, as well as explaining the mental and visual manifestations of hyperventilation. As I explained earlier in this chapter, the acidity and alkalinity of bodily fluids is determined by the relative difference between the concentration of bicarbonate and the pressure of carbon dioxide as expressed by the Henderson-Hasselbach equation earlier this chapter. For the situation in arterial blood, the normal PCO2 = 40 mmHg, and the [HCO3-] = 24 millimoles, this means that the “bicarbonate / carbon dioxide ratio” is about 0.6. If the ratio is larger than 0.6, a fluid or tissue will be alkaline because this means there is less carbon dioxide due to hyperventilation. And when the ratio is less than 0.6, this means the fluid or tissue is acid. Chronic obstructive airways disease and hyperventilation Now people with severe chronic obstructive airways disease often have a higher than normal carbon dioxide concentration in their blood, simply because they cannot breathe deeply and rapidly enough to remove all the waste carbon dioxide from their bodies. And because the carbon dioxide concentration is higher than normal, this drives the chemical equilibrium to the right such that more carbonic acid is made. CO2 + H2O → H2CO3 → H+ + HCO3- The carbonic acid dissociates into hydrogen ion and bicarbonate ion. Eventually the relative concentrations of bicarbonate ion and the pressure of carbon dioxide are such that the ratio of 0.6 is achieved, and the pH once again equals 7.4. This is not something theoretical, but is a standard clinical truth seen in such persons and taught to medical students throughout the world. Here is an example. Consider the values for pH, carbon dioxide pressure, and bicarbonate concentration reported by Walmsley during 1985 in a man with severe chronic obstructive airways disease: pH = 7.42, PCO2 = 87 mmHg, [HCO3-] = 55 millimoles (Walmsley 1985). The bicarbonate / carbon dioxide ratio here = 55 / 87 = 0.63 = approximately normal. This is a classic example of how right-shifting of the chemical equilibrium increases the bicarbonate concentration, so normalizing the pH of this man's blood and body. Now just imagine this man was admitted to the intensive care with respiratory failure, where he was treated with mechanical ventilation of his lungs. Imagine that overenthusiastic physicians adjusted the mechanical ventilator such that his arterial carbon dioxide pressure was rapidly lowered to the normal level of 40 mmHg. Because carbon dioxide is more rapidly eliminated from the body than the bicarbonate concentration changes, the resulting bicarbonate / carbon dioxide ratio would be = 55 / 40 = 1.38, which indicates his blood would suddenly become very alkaline. If we calculate the exact pH, the resulting pH in his arterial blood would = 7.76. This means his blood would very rapidly become very alkaline indeed. This effect is true hyperventilation, because the change of carbon dioxide pressure is relative to the original carbon dioxide pressure in an abnormal equilibrium state. Such changes can profoundly affect the functioning of the body. But are these changes in body function important? And do these changes induce significant changes in body function? Cerebral blood flow and hyperventilation The flow of blood through the brain is called the “cerebral blood flow”. The normal flow of blood through the adult human brain is about 50 milliliters blood per 100 gm brain tissue per minute (50 ml/100 gm/min). During 1954, a medical scientist called Frank Finnerty determined the levels of cerebral blood flow at which cerebral hypoxia occurs in conscious people (Finnerty 1954). This experiment was performed according to the ethical standards of the day, using measurement techniques that are still the “golden standards” for the measurements he performed. Nowadays, most medical ethical committees would refuse permission to perform this experiment, so this was one of those enormously valuable, but unrepeatable experiments providing invaluable information about a fundamental property of the functioning of the human brain. The experiment was basically simple. He used a drug to lower the blood pressure of the experimental persons until symptoms of cerebral hypoxia occurred. Manifestations of cerebral hypoxia were defined as “sighing, yawning, staring, and confusion.” He found that the average level of cerebral blood flow at which cerebral hypoxia began to manifest was 31.5 ml/100 gm/min (Finnerty 1954). But this figure is an average, which means one half of all people developed manifestations of cerebral hypoxia at higher levels of cerebral blood flow, the other half at lower levels. So when you look at a graph of the distribution of levels of cerebral blood flow at which cerebral hypoxia occurred in this experiment, you see that significant numbers of people developed manifestations of cerebral hypoxia at cerebral blood flow at levels of even 40 ml/100 gm/min. The reverse is also true. About 10% of people are still conscious without any cerebral hypoxic symptoms at blood flow levels of 20-25 ml/100 gm/min, and about 5% are still conscious without any cerebral hypoxic symptoms at blood flow levels as low as 15-20 ml/100 gm/min (see Figure 5). Figure 5: Percentage distribution of cerebral blood flows at which symptoms of cerebral hypoxia without loss of consciousness occur in people of all age groups. Symptoms of cerebral hypoxia occur at an average cerebral blood flow of 31.5 ml/100 gm/min. The distribution of measurements around this average reveals that somewhat more than 10% of people are still conscious without any cerebral hypoxic symptoms at blood flow levels of 20-25 ml/100 gm/min, and about 5% are still conscious without any cerebral hypoxic symptoms at blood flow levels as low as 15-20 ml/100 gm/min (Finnerty 1954) (Figure � Woerlee). Human studies performed since the 1940's reveal that hyperventilation reduces the cerebral blood flow by causing constriction [narrowing] of the arteries supplying the brain with blood (Pierce 1962, Raichle 1972, Wollman 1965, Wollman 1968a). Seymour Kety devised the first accurate system for measuring the cerebral blood flow which is still the “golden standard” against which other techniques for measuring cerebral blood flow are compared. His articles are still as current and valuable as when they were published during the 1940's. He found that cerebral blood flow is directly related to the carbon dioxide pressure in the blood, and inversely related to the pH of the blood flowing through the arteries going to the brain (Kety 1946, Kety 1948). In other words, the lower the carbon dioxide pressure in the blood, the lower the cerebral blood flow. The studies of Kety clearly demonstrated that when hyperventilation caused the arterial carbon dioxide to drop below 30 mmHg, that the cerebral blood flow dropped below 40 ml/100 gm/min (Kety 1946), a cerebral blood flow threshold below which increasing numbers of people develop manifestations of cerebral hypoxia (Figure 6). And as mentioned earlier, all people develop neurological manifestations due to hyperventilation below an arterial carbon dioxide pressure of 20 mmHg (Rafferty 1992, and Figure 6). Figure 6: The effect of hyperventilation on the cerebral blood flow. The relationship between the carbon dioxide pressure in arterial blood and the cerebral blood flow in humans is as shown in this graph (Kety 1946, Kety 1948, Wollman 1965, Wollman 1968a). Extreme levels of hyperventilation, where the carbon dioxide pressure drops below 25-30 mmHg cause the cerebral blood flow to drop below 40 ml/100 gm/min, a level below which increasingly more people develop manifestations of cerebral hypoxia (Finnerty 1954) (Figure � Woerlee). Such low levels of arterial carbon dioxide pressure also cause cerebral blood flow to drop to levels at which cerebral hypoxia occurs (Figure 5). But are the cerebral manifestations of hyperventilation due to cerebral hypoxia? Binding of oxygen with hemoglobin provides further evidence that hyperventilation may well cause brain tissue hypoxia. Binding of oxygen to hemoglobin Blood is not a wondrous fluid with magical properties. Instead blood is a transport fluid. It transports oxygen, electrolytes, proteins, hormones, fats and sugars to tissues, and removes waste products of metabolism, hormones, products of metabolisms, etc away from tissues. Oxygen is transported by blood from the lungs where it enters the body. However oxygen is very poorly soluble in blood, and blood contains negligible amounts of dissolved oxygen. Practically all oxygen in blood is chemically bound to hemoglobin inside red blood cells. But the chemical binding of oxygen with hemoglobin is directly affected by the acidity and alkalinity of blood (i.e. the pH of blood). Hyperventilation causes loss of carbon dioxide from the body, causing the pH of blood to increase and become more alkaline. When blood is more alkaline, hemoglobin binds more tightly with oxygen. Oxygen bound to hemoglobin within red blood cells does nothing, because binding of oxygen to hemoglobin within red blood cells is no more than the body's method of transporting oxygen to the capillaries within the tissues of the body. Within the capillaries of the tissues of the body, the chemical bond between oxygen and hemoglobin is weak enough to allow oxygen to leave the blood and diffuse into the cells surrounding the capillaries, so providing oxygen for the vital, energy-generating chemical processes within the cells forming the tissues of the body. But when hyperventilation causes oxygen to bind more tightly to hemoglobin, less oxygen is released to diffuse into the tissues surrounding the capillaries. The oxyhemoglobin saturation curve demonstrates this effect, showing that hemoglobin binds oxygen more tightly during hyperventilation (Figure 7). This is why hyperventilation can cause less oxygen to enter the tissues of the body from the capillaries, so resulting in hypoxia of the cells outside the blood vessels, even though the blood contains more than sufficient oxygen. Figure 7: Oxyhemoglobin saturation curve showing how the binding of hemoglobin with oxygen changes during hyperventilation. For example, if the oxygen pressure is 40 mmHg, the pH and everything else is normal, then hemoglobin is about 75% saturated. But during extreme hyperventilation when the PCO2 = 20 mmHg, the chemical binding of hemoglobin with oxygen is much stronger, and hemoglobin is almost 90% saturated at an oxygen pressure of 40 mmHg. (Figure � Woerlee). Hyperventilation causes cerebral hypoxia But does hyperventilation cause cerebral hypoxia? Hyperventilation has profound effects on the transport and delivery of oxygen to the tissues of the body. Hyperventilation reduces the cerebral blood flow, and to make matters worse, hyperventilation also causes oxygen to bind more tightly with hemoglobin. Both factors combine to reduce the availability of oxygen to the tissues of the brain, and can even cause cerebral hypoxia. Animal studies reveal that extreme hyperventilation does indeed cause cerebral hypoxia (Clausen 2004, Sugioka 1960). The tragic fatal effects of relative hyperventilation in humans with severe chronic obstructive airway disease, also reveals that hyperventilation in humans can result in cerebral hypoxia severe enough to cause actual brain damage and brain death (Kilburn 1966, Rotheram 1964). Furthermore, hyperventilation has also been implicated as one of the potential causes of postoperative cognitive dysfunction. Hyperventilation-induced frontal lobe failure This last remark brings us to the effects of hyperventilation on conscious mental function. These were discussed earlier in this chapter and consist of manifestations such as: disturbed mentation, impaired concentration, poor memory, and hallucinations. Feelings of depersonalization are also common, as hyperventilating persons often describe sensations of unreality, or feeling everything is confused and dream-like. Many of these conscious mental experiences and manifestations are similar to those of cerebral hypoxia (see Chapter 4). And during extreme degrees of hyperventilation, the degree of cerebral hypoxia may be sufficient to cause loss of consciousness. But is this true for lesser degrees of hyperventilation? Figure 8: The basic regions / lobes of the surface, (or cortex) of the brain. (Figure � Woerlee). The effects of hyperventilation upon the human brain have been studied intensively for many years. As long ago as the 1940's, hyperventilation was known to cause high amplitude, low frequency delta waves [waves with a frequency of 1-4 Hertz] to manifest in the electroencephalograph of the frontal lobes of the brains of conscious persons (Davis 1942, Meyer 1960, Stoddart 1967, Worp 1991). However, the appearance of delta waves is unrelated to the degree of lowering of arterial carbon dioxide pressure, or the pH increase due to hyperventilation, but is directly related to the occurrence of cerebral hypoxia induced by hyperventilation (Gotoh 1965). Hyperventilation does not only reduce the total cerebral blood flow, but also changes the distribution of blood flow within the brain. Modern studies reveal that blood flow to the frontal, occipital, and parieto-occipital cortex (see Figure 8), as well as the hippocampus is reduced relative to other areas of the brain within seconds to minutes of commencing hyperventilation (Naganawa 2002, Posse 1997). These relative changes in blood flow and electroencephalogram reflect reduced activity in these regions of the brain. The frontal lobes of the brain are required for cognitive functions such as memory, experience of time, directed attention, reflective consciousness, and the idea of self (Dietrich 2003). So hyperventilation induced cognitive changes such as disturbed mentation, impaired concentration, and poor memory, are readily explained by reduced frontal cortical function - nicely termed “transient hypofrontality” (Dietrich 2003). The occipital cortex performs primary and secondary visual processing, while the parieto-occipital cortex integrates body sensory information into the body image (Blanke 2005, Maravita 2003). Reduced function in these regions of the brain certainly explains other experiences occurring during hyperventilation, such as visual hallucinations, feelings of depersonalization, or feeling that everything is confused and dream-like. All these things mean hyperventilation can temporarily induce profound changes in brain function and the resulting conscious mental function. These effects even form the basis for a particular form of psychotherapy during which patients perform prolonged hyperventilation - a therapy called “Holotropic Breathwork” (Rhinwine 2007). As a simple and blunt anesthesiologist, I am unable to make any serious assessment of this form of psychotherapy, but this use of the conscious mental effects of hyperventilation is certainly interesting. Drowning and hyperventilation Most swimmers know that a short period of hyperventilation prior to diving allows them to extend the period they can spend underwater. But this not a safe technique, because sometimes people who hyperventilate prior to diving lose consciousness and drown while underwater (Craig 1976). Part of the reason why this technique works is the fact that breathing is mainly regulated by the pressure of carbon dioxide in the blood. Increased carbon dioxide pressures in arterial blood stimulates breathing, and generates a desire to breathe. Decreased carbon dioxide pressure in blood causes breathing to slow, reducing the urge to breathe, sometimes entirely removing the urge to breathe (Meah 1994). Arterial blood oxygen pressures measured in divers forced to surface due to the necessity to take a breath after prolonged dives preceded by hyperventilation, are sometimes low enough to cause loss of motor control (Lindholm 2006), and sometimes even low enough to cause loss of consciousness in some people (Craig 1961, Lindholm 2006). Loss of consciousness due to hypoxia is insidious, and is preceded by changes in mental state whereby affected people experience loss of insight, together with feelings of wellbeing (page 300 in Liere 1963). This explains why many people do not even realize they are about to lose consciousness due to hypoxia. This is the reason why some people who hyperventilate prior to an underwater dive, sometimes lose consciousness due to cerebral hypoxia before feeling the necessity to surface and breathe. And once they lose consciousness while underwater, they subsequently drown if not rescued (Craig 1976). However, anesthesiologists regard hyperventilation as a useful technique. Hyperventilation during general anesthesia Anesthesiologists often exploit the various properties of hyperventilation during general anesthesia. For example: During neurosurgical operations on the brain, anesthesiologists often apply hyperventilation to cause constriction of the blood vessels of the brain. This reduces the volume of blood inside blood vessels within the substance of the brain, so reducing the volume of the brain. Constriction of blood vessels also reduces bleeding. The combination of both effects results in better operating conditions for the neurosurgeon. Hyperventilation below an arterial carbon dioxide pressure of 30 mmHg reduces the level of consciousness, and sometimes even induces loss of consciousness. One consequence of this is a reduction of drug dosages required for general anesthesia. Hyperventilation is sometimes used at the end of operations to reduce the level of consciousness, as well as to prolong and intensify the actions of residual concentrations of anesthetic drugs. This last point is fascinating. How can hyperventilation intensify and prolong the actions of anesthetic drugs? The answer lies in the chemical nature of anesthetic drugs. Most drugs and most organic compounds are either weak acids or weak bases. Anesthetic drugs are no different. In fact, except for thiopental, all anesthetic drugs are bases. Now a base interacts with water molecules to form an equilibrium between an ionized form and a non-ionized form. Just look at this chemical equilibrium where “H2O” is water, and “B” is the base molecule or drug. When such a weak base dissolves in water, it interacts with water to acquire a hydrogen ion (H+), resulting in a free negatively charged hydroxyl ion (OH) in the following manner. B + H2O ⇔ BH+ + OH- For example, morphine is just such a weak base, so the interaction with water is just the same, and forms an equilibrium as below where the proportions ionized and unionized morphine are constant at each pH level. Morphine + H2O ⇔ MorphineH+ + OH- Morphine is a weak base. So when blood becomes more acid, (i.e. the pH decreases), a greater proportion of morphine exists in the ionized form. On the other hand, when blood becomes more alkaline and the pH increases, a smaller proportion of morphine exists in the ionized form. The same is true for all other anesthetic drugs except for thiopental. This may sound like a chemical subtlety of little practical consequence, but the concept of ionization of drugs used in anesthesia has important practical consequences. Anesthetic drugs do not cause sleep by acting upon blood cells or blood vessels: anesthetic drugs do not cause muscle paralysis by acting on blood cells or blood vessels: and anesthetic drugs do not relieve pain by acting upon blood cells or blood vessels. Instead, anesthetic drugs cause all these effects by acting upon nerve cells which are located outside and around blood vessels. And anesthetic drugs must somehow diffuse out of the blood vessels transporting them to get to the nerve cells outside. Brain capillaries only permit the passage of non-ionized drug molecules into the substance of the brain, and many anesthesiologists exploit this latter fact to prolong the effects of general anesthesia under some circumstances. One of these circumstances is the period near the end of an operation. At the end of an operation, a patient must be quickly aroused and transported out of the operating theater to the recovery room, so that the next patient can be brought into the operating theater to undergo an operation. So towards the end of an operation, anesthesiologists always try to lower the concentrations of drugs used for general anesthesia so that the patients will awaken more rapidly. They use measurements as well as clinical experience to estimate whether their patients will remain under general anesthesia sufficiently long for the surgeon to finish before they awaken. This is where anesthesia becomes an art form akin to cooking or music. Unfortunately some patients begin to react to the pain of surgery at this time. This leaves the anesthesiologist with three choices of action: Deepen the general anesthetic to the same level as during the middle of the operation. But this means that the time to awakening at the end of the operation will be longer than normal, resulting in a very slow operating program, from which one or more patients may have to be cancelled due to lack of time. Administration of repeated small doses of an anesthetic drug such as thiopental or propofol, sometimes together with an opiate. This is often a good choice, because patients usually awaken quickly after this technique, provided the surgeon does not take his time closing the wounds. Regrettably, some surgeons do take their time, ignoring anesthesiologists telling them to hurry. Hyperventilate the patient until the surgeon is finished. This is a practical and commonly used technique when combined with small doses of thiopental or propofol. Hyperventilation, not only reduces the level of consciousness, but also increases the proportion of non-ionized opiates already present in blood. This means more of these opiates can enter the brain, resulting in higher brain concentrations of opiates such as morphine (Nishitateno 1979), sufentanil (Matteo 1992), and fentanyl (Ainslie 1979). The same effect is also true for all other anesthetic drugs, except for thiopental. This relative increase in non-ionized concentrations of weakly basic drugs is one of the reasons why hyperventilation potentiates the effects of most anesthetic drugs. Final remarks on hyperventilation This brief discussion of the properties and consequences of hyperventilation reveal it to be almost “magical” in the extent of the extensive changes it induces in body and mental function. And the most magical aspect of hyperventilation, is how something as simple as breathing deeply and quickly, can induce such profound effects upon the functioning of the body, as well as the functioning of the conscious mind. Hyperventilation is still applied during some types of surgery performed under general anesthesia, but when injudiciously applied is detrimental, yet when applied appropiately is a useful addition to the anesthesiological amamentarium. EMILY MARBURGER (MAYOR OF BELLEVUE 15202) NEEDS TO END THE MEDICAL HOLOCAUST IN "OUR TOWN"... ORGAN PRINTING: THE STEM CELL CONUNDRUM INTRODUCTION: ORGAN PRINTING: METHODS AND PRESENTATION Advances in bioprinting, have brought along with them many great aspects that can improve the quality of life of many people, including the ability to create new tissues and even new organs for people who have been injured or sick. Bioprinting is an innovation in biomedical and tissue engineering in which biological tissues such as skin and organs are printed from a three-dimensional bioprinter. Using live cells as the material to be printed with [1]. However, at this point in time, the development has reached an ethical crossroad in the process of creating fully formed three-dimensional working organs. While working in the organ printing department of a research facility for tissue engineering, the suggestion of the incorporation of human embryonic stem cells into the process of growing cells and printing organs. The integration of human embryonic stem cells into the cultures dramatically increases the yield of cells, which can be used to print organs; however, there is no dependent source of human embryonic stem cells that would not cause for an ethical dilemma within both the company and the public. One of the main sources of embryonic stem cells that are used in research nowadays is the collection of cells from abortion [2]. An agreement is made with clinics throughout the US to hand over excess stem cells and artificially inseminated eggs to our company to be cultured and grown, in order to create an abundance of human embryonic stem cells that could be used for printing organs. With the introduction of stems cells, the research rates would increase exponentially and, after the initial testing period, in which fully printed organs were tested in animals, the finished products would be put on the market. When asked about the source of the cells used, I have been instructed to let it be known that human embryonic stem cells are used, however it is not allowed to let it known that these stem cells are coming from the abortions being performed throughout the United States, because of the amount of controversy that it would cause would most likely shut down the entire operation. Looking at this situation from the perspective of a biomedical engineer, who is bound by the code of ethics for both the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and the Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES), it would be a difficult decision to make because of the conflicting aspects of the situation. Having the ability to print organs from scratch is an invaluable technique to have, and it could help endless amounts of people; however, each person who is receiving one of the organs deserves to know the true origin of the cells that are being put into their body. I, personally, would agree with the use of human embryonic stem cells in the printing of organs, but I would not agree to this situation because it contains far too many violations of the both codes of ethics and overall is a dishonest situation. USE OF HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS Printing an organ is an extremely complex process that requires much more than just living cells and a 3-D bio printer [3]. Three-dimensional printing is the process in which a 3-D printer lays a type of material in multiple layers of a two dimensional cross section to form a three dimensional object [4]. When an organ is printed, the cells must be positioned on top of each other in a certain way to allow them to fuse together into a working organ [5]. With the introduction of human embryonic stem cells into the process, not only would the cells be better suited for the task at hand, more cells would also be able to be cultured from the stem cells at a faster rate [6]. Many controversial theories have arisen in the general public about the origin of the cells to be used for organ printing. The most prevalent of the theories is the use of the human embryonic stem cells, which come from abortions, in order to grow the cells used to print organs [2]. Though this may not seem immoral, considering these cells are not being put to use in any other way, one of the main concerns was the idea of this being incentive for institutes to increase the number of abortions they perform; however, in this situation, that is not an issue because of the wide range of locations across the United States from which these cells can be gained. According to Dr. Courtney Farrell, author of the article “Stem Cell Research”, the use of human embryonic stem cells is widely disapproved of in the general public of because of the theory that life begins at the moment of conception [6]. This creates a dynamic between the fetus and the person getting the organ because that would be valuing one life over another, which is the root of the problem for many of the people who are currently opposed to the situation in this instance. The situation is then exacerbated by the fact that there is the possibility that abortions are beginning to take place for the sole purpose of gaining human embryonic stem cells, which would not be a step in the positive direction. Looking at the situation from an engineering point of view, according to one of the fundamental canons of the code of ethics for engineers from the National Society of Professional Engineers, an engineer must always view a situation in which the safety, health and welfare of the public is held above all other aspects [7]. The introduction of human embryonic stem cells greatly increases the chance that an organ would be successfully printed, which would be considerate of the health and welfare of the general public; however, if the cells are being cultured in a suspicious manner, that could possibly be dangerous to the health and safety of the public, then as an engineer, I cannot support this process because it is a direct violation of the code of ethics. Nonetheless, if the use of embryonic stem cells were to increase the chance that organs would be able to be printed, then from an engineer’s point of view, those cells should be used. Each day, 115,000 people are in need of a lifesaving organ transplant, in the United States, but are unable to get them because of lack of access [8]. On average, 18 people die, each day, due to lack of available organs for transplant, and the need for organs is rising each day. According to the statistics at DonateLife.net, “in 2012 there were 14,013 organ donors resulting in 28,052 organ transplants” [9]. The need for organs is vastly outracing the amount of organs and organ donors; therefore, organ printing would be a good investment of the time and resources, at least to close the gap between the amount of people who need organs and the amount of organs that are available. Withholding the ability to print organs because of the religious beliefs of the few who are opposed to the use of stem cells would not be abiding by the code of ethics for engineers. It would be in the interest of the health and welfare of the public to incorporate human embryonic stem cells into the process of organ printing because of the potential amount of lives it would be able to save through the three-dimensional printing of organs. ANIMAL TESTING Once organ printing is fully developed, and some of the prototypes are put into practice, many fear that the use of animals for testing will become a problem. Animal testing has become a normal process in the research process of today’s society, yet it is still heavily debated and protested by many people around the world [2]. Again, looking at it from an engineering perspective, in terms of the code of ethics from the National Society of Professional Engineers, the health and welfare of the public must be held paramount over other aspects; however, as stated in the code of ethics for biomedical engineers, as put forth by the Biomedical Engineering Society, a biomedical engineer must “Comply fully with legal, ethical, institutional, governmental, and other applicable research guidelines, respecting the rights of and exercising the responsibilities to colleagues, human and animal subjects and the scientific and general public” [10]. Animals have rights also, and they deserve to be treated a certain way, even if they are being used for scientific research. There is a certain standard of living that is would be considered as respecting the rights of an animal. Therefore, if the conditions and the treatment of the animals were unacceptable during the time of the testing, I would not be able to support that process because it would be against the Biomedical engineering research obligations. But in this situation, it is easy enough to ensure the correct treatment of the animals in which the organs are being tested so that would not be a valid reason for the initial testing of the organs to be halted. Organ printing is a technology that has the potential to change the world by saving many innocent lives. I am not advocating for animal testing when it comes to testing the organs produced by organ printing, but if this technology truly has the potential to make such a big difference, then it is plausible to use a certain amount of animal testing in a controlled environment and manner if it is necessary. PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION The methods of the research facility to obtain their findings and discoveries are sound; however the way in which they chose to present it is somewhat questionable. They want to present their discoveries to the market as three-dimensional printed organs containing human embryonic stem cells, but they are tentative to reveal the origins of those cells as being the results of abortions, out of fear that it would not go over well with the public. Selectively withholding information about their product would create a very bad situation for many people, especially those who were extremely opposed to the idea of using human embryonic stem cells. Not only is that dishonest and dangerous for the people who are getting the printed organs made from stem cells, but it is also a violation of the code of ethics for both the Biomedical Engineering Society and the National Society of Professional Engineers. The code of ethics for the Biomedical engineering society clearly states that all biomedical engineers involved in health care activities shall “regard responsibility toward and rights of patients, including those of confidentiality and privacy, as their primary concern” meaning, in this situation, that the confidentiality between patient and the person giving them the organ, that could potentially save their life, should extend to telling them the full truth about the origins of the cells that will soon be in their body in the form of a three-dimensionally printed organ [10]. Such dishonesty between the company and the patient is unacceptable. Also, according canons of the code of ethics put forth by the National Society of Professional Engineers, engineers are to avoid deceptive acts [7]. Omitting such a large part of the information on something that is going to become an integral part of another person is definitely a deceptive act, because it doesn’t allow the consumer to make an informed decision on whether or not they want it. An engineer is commissioned to create the technologies that are in the best interest of the health and welfare of the public. If the people choose not to use the technologies for personal reasons then that is not the jurisdiction of the engineer. If a technology is chosen based on a false or not completely true pretense, then that is not in the best interest of the public in any way. The code of ethics then goes on to say, “Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact,” which reiterates the aforementioned point [7]. It is an utter violation of the engineering code of ethics to omit such an important fact, especially when lives could be at stake because of it. CONCLUSION Organ printing shows promise as a new innovative technology, that has the potential to help countless numbers of people; however, there are some who are opposed to the idea of organ printing, and rally for the stopping of research into the topic. However, in this scenario, in which a certain type of human embryonic stem cells are being added to the organs without the knowledge of the people who are accepting these organs, organ printing has shown itself to be a very ethically charged scenario. It is very important to consider the ethical side of any situation, especially in situations concerning the innocent lives of patients, because codes of ethics for engineers were made to protect the general public from the dangers of the field. It is completely unethical according to both codes of ethics for all engineers and more specifically biomedical engineers. The logical solution to this scenario would be to discontinue research and progress until the research facility found a better way to present their methods to the public. Even though the technology for printing organs has the potential to help many people, it would be counteractive to deceive the public into using something they may not want to use. Susan Lindauer (born July 17, 1963) is an American antiwar activist and former U.S. Congressional staffer who was charged with "acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government" and violating U.S. financial sanctions during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She was incarcerated in 2005 and released the next year after two judges ruled her mentally unfit to stand trial. The government dropped the prosecution in 2009. In 2010, Lindauer published a book about her experiences. Since 2011 Lindauer has appeared frequently on television and in print as a U.S. government critic. Contents [hide] 1 Early life and education 2 Career 3 Interest in the Middle East 4 Arrest, incarceration and release 5 Book and subsequent claims 6 Television Personality and U.S. government critic 7 References 8 External links Early life and education[edit] Lindauer is the daughter of John Howard Lindauer II, a newspaper publisher and former Republican nominee for Governor of Alaska. Her mother, Jackie Lindauer, died of cancer in 1992. In 1995, her father married Dorothy Oremus, a Chicago attorney.[1] Lindauer attended East Anchorage High School in Anchorage, Alaska, where she was an honor student and was in school plays.[2] She graduated from Smith College in 1985 and then earned a master's degree in public policy from the London School of Economics.[3] Career[edit] Lindauer began in journalism working as a temporary reporter at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in 1987, and as an editorial writer at The Everett Herald in Everett, Washington until 1989. She later worked as a reporter and researcher at U.S. News & World Report in 1990 and 1991.[1][2][4][5] Lindauer worked as a Congressional staffer for Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR, 1993) and then Representative Ron Wyden (D-OR, 1994) before joining the office of Senator Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL), where she worked as a press secretary and speech writer.[1][4] She served as Press Secretary for Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) from March 11, 2002 to May 14, 2002.[6][7] Interest in the Middle East[edit] In November 1993, a friend of Lindauer's father introduced her to former Vietnam combat pilot Paul Hoven, at a restaurant next to the Heritage Foundation in Virginia. She began socialising in an informal circle of conservatives interested in counterterrorism, including Capitol Hill staff and intelligence community members. These included Dr. Richard Fuisz[3] and senior Congressional staffer Kelly O'Meara.[8] At the time of Lindauer's first meeting with Fuisz, theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 were divided between blaming the Libyan government under Moammar Gaddafi and the Syrian Ahmed Jabril. Lindauer said that Fuisz had shared with her a theory that did not hold Libya to blame. Lindauer and Fuisz said they met an average of once per week from 1994 to 2001, and Lindauer has described Fuisz as "my contact with the CIA." In 2000, the Sunday Herald in Scotland reported that Fuisz had been an operative for the CIA in Damascus during the 1980s. Fuisz did not confirm or deny this, saying he was not permitted to speak about it.[3][9] Lindauer said she began making visits to the Libyan mission at the United Nations (UN) in 1995[4] and with Iraqis at the UN in 1996.[3] In 2000, she told Middle East Intelligence Bulletin that she had been subject to surveillance, threats, and was attacked after meeting Libyan officials in 1995 to discuss what she had learned about the Flight 103 bombing.[4][10] On November 26, 2000, then President-elect George W. Bush appointed Lindauer's second cousin,[11][12] Andrew Card, as White House Chief of Staff upon his inauguration. Card had previously served as Deputy Chief of Staff and Secretary of Transportation for George H. W. Bush, and had been selected by George W. Bush to run the 2000 Republican National Convention.[13] Starting in 2000, Lindauer delivered multiple letters to Card, leaving them on the doorstep of his home in Northern Virginia. In her letters, she urged Card to intercede with President George W. Bush not to invade Iraq, and offered to act as a back channel in negotiations.[3] Over approximately two years, Lindauer wrote Card a total of eleven letters, the last on January 6, 2003, two months before the invasion of Iraq.[14] Card later told the FBI that Lindauer had tried to contact him several times, but according to a statement by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, Card did not recall seeing or talking to Lindauer after the January 2001 inauguration.[11] In a 2008 hearing, one of Lindauer's associates testified that she had mentioned an imminent attack on Manhattan with airplanes in 2001.[8] Lindauer, in her book, claims that she was asked by Fuisz to ask the Iraqi diplomats if they knew about an imminent attack. According to Lindauer, pre-9/11 information was part of her work with Fuisz. Fuisz's interactions with Lindauer ended in 2001, i.e. he had a falling out with Lindauer after the September 11th attacks in 2001, no longer welcoming her to his office. He said that before the attacks she was "Arabist, but Arabist from the standpoint of trying to lift sanctions, so that children would do better, and trying to get medicines into countries -- principally I'm talking about Iraq and Libya." Lindauer described her falling out with Fuisz in a 2009 interview, saying that it had been in regard to the approach taken in reacting to the possibility of an imminent attack.[15] He said that after September 11, "Susan, in her discussions, went from benign, in my opinion, to malignant... These discussions changed and now involved a very strong seditious bent."[3] Arrest, incarceration and release[edit] On March 11, 2004, Lindauer was arrested in Takoma Park, Maryland by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).[3][16][17] She was taken to the FBI office in Baltimore. Outside of this office, she told WBAL-TV: "I'm an antiwar activist and I'm innocent. I did more to stop terrorism in this country than anybody else. I have done good things for this country. I worked to get weapons inspectors back to Iraq when everybody else said it was impossible."[18][19] Lindauer was indicted by a grand jury for "acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government",[20] an accusation usually made against foreign spies.[21][22] For this reason, the media wrote much about her being accused of spying.[23] Lindauer stated she was charged (and held in detention) under the USA PATRIOT Act.[24] The indictment against Lindauer alleged that she accepted US$10,000 from the Iraqi Intelligence Service in 2002.[3][20] Lindauer denied receiving the money, but confirmed taking a trip to Baghdad.[3] Lindauer was also accused of meeting with an FBI agent posing as a Libyan, with whom she spoke about the "need for plans and foreign resources to support resistance groups operating in Iraq."[6] Lindauer said she went to the meeting because of her interest in filing a war crimes suit against the U.S. and U.K. governments.[3] Pursuant to Lindauer's arrest, Congresswoman Lofgren released a statement saying she was "shocked" by the arrest, that she had no evidence of illicit activities by Lindauer, and that she would cooperate with the investigation.[6][7] Robert Precht, an Assistant Dean of the University of Michigan Law School, said the charges were "weak" and that Lindauer was more likely a "misguided peacenik".[25] Lindauer was released on bond on March 13, 2004 to attend an arraignment the following week.[26] Sanford Talkin of New York was appointed by the court as her lawyer.[27] Lindauer claimed she was conducting peace negotiations with representatives of several Muslim countries (including Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, and Yemen) in New York. According to transcripts Lindauer presented to the New York Times in 2004, these included meetings with Iraqi Muthanna al-Hanooti, a peace activist later accused of spying. Lindauer also said that the U.S. intelligence community was aware of these meetings and was monitoring her.[3][27] President George W. Bush listens to remarks by Mukasey after announcing his nomination to be Attorney General. In 2005, Lindauer was incarcerated at Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, for psychological evaluation. She was then moved to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.[28] In 2006, she was released after judge Michael B. Mukasey ruled that Lindauer was unfit to stand trial.[29][28] He noted that the severity of Lindauer's mental illness, which he described as a "lengthy delusional history", weakened the prosecution's case. In his decision he wrote, "Lindauer ... could not act successfully as an agent of the Iraqi government without in some way influencing normal people .... There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have. The indictment charges only what it describes as an unsuccessful attempt to influence an unnamed government official, and the record shows that even lay people recognize that she is seriously disturbed."[28] During Lindauer's incarceration she refused antipsychotic medication which the United States Department of Justice claimed would render her competent to stand trial. Judge Mukasey would not allow her to be forcibly medicated, as requested by the prosecution.[30][31][32][33] At a hearing in June 2008, Lindauer told reporters that she had been a CIA asset[34] and said she had "been hung out to dry and scapegoated".[34] In 2008, Justice Loretta A. Preska of the Federal District Court in New York City reaffirmed that Lindauer was mentally unfit to stand trial, despite Lindauer's insistence to the contrary.[1][35] Preska ruled that Lindauer's belief in her connection to the intelligence community was evidence of her insanity.[36] Testifying before Loretta Preska, the New York Times reported that Lindauer, "... angrily contested an accusation in her indictment that she had illegally lunched with Iraqi intelligence operatives."[37] On January 16, 2009, the government decided to not continue with the prosecution saying, "prosecuting Lindauer would no longer be in the interests of justice."[29][38] Book and subsequent claims[edit] In 2010, Lindauer self-published a book about her experience titled Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover-Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.[39] Lindauer wrote that for a number of years she had worked for the CIA and DIA undertaking communications with the Iraqi government and serving as a back-channel in U.S. government negotiations. In October 2012 she denied in an e-mail being the author of the Markovian Parallax Denigrate Usenet postings of August 5, 1996. The meaning of the cryptic posts, if any, remains a mystery.[40] Television Personality and U.S. government critic[edit] Since 2011, Lindauer has repeatedly appeared on Russia Today news, in television and in print where she is presented as an expert on Libya,[41][42] Iraq and Yemen[43] also as a commentator on U.S. government operations.[44] Lindauer's story was profiled on the English-language Iranian television show The Autograph[45][46] on Press TV-Iran in 2011 premed.cash organscam.com 911kite 911kites 911kite.com 911kites.com ... PITTBIRD 911 KITES GO 2001 FEET ALTITUDE...JOIN THE RITA REVOLUTION (RITAREVOLUTION)... Teen accuses Mayo Clinic of ‘medical kidnapping’ POSTED 11:35 AM, AUGUST 13, 2018, BY CNN WIRE FACEBOOK952 TWITTER GOOGLE LINKEDIN PINTEREST EMAIL In a jaw-dropping moment caught on video, an 18-year-old high school senior rushes to escape from the hospital that saved her life and then, she says, held her captive. At the entrance to the world-renowned Mayo Clinic, the young woman’s stepfather helps her out of a wheelchair and into the family car. Staff members come running toward him, yelling “No! No!” One of them grabs the young woman’s arm. “Get your hands off my daughter!” her stepfather yells. The car speeds away, the stepfather and the patient inside, her mother at the wheel. Mayo security calls 911. “We have had a patient abduction,” the security officer tells police, according to a transcript of the call. ‘A cautionary tale’ The patient’s name is Alyssa Gilderhus. She and her family say she wasn’t abducted from the Mayo Clinic in February 2017; rather, she escaped. They say the hospital was keeping her there against her will — that Mayo “medically kidnapped” her. Unhappy with the care she was receiving at Mayo, they say, they repeatedly asked for her to be transferred to another hospital. They say Mayo refused. According to police, Mayo officials had a different plan for Alyssa: They had asked the county for assistance in “gaining guardianship of Alyssa,” who was an adult. A spokeswoman for the Mayo Clinic said hospital officials would be willing to answer CNN’s questions if Alyssa signed a privacy release form giving them permission to discuss her case publicly with CNN. The spokeswoman, Ginger Plumbo, supplied that form to CNN. Alyssa signed the form, but Plumbo declined to answer CNN’s questions on the record. Instead, she provided a statement, which said in part, “We will not address these questionable allegations or publicly share the facts of this complex situation, because we do not believe it’s in the best interest of the patient and the family. … Our internal review determined that the care team’s actions were true to Mayo Clinic’s primary value that the patient’s needs come first. We acted in a manner that honored that value for this patient and that also took into account the safety and well-being of the team caring for the patient.” Read the Mayo Clinic’s entire statement to CNN. This story is based on interviews with Alyssa and members of her family, a family friend, law enforcement officials and a former member of a Mayo Clinic board, as well as documents including law enforcement records and Alyssa’s medical records. By everyone’s account, this is an unfortunate and devastating story about a bitter clash that went out of control — a clash between a Minnesota farm family and one of the world’s most revered hospitals. “It’s confusing to me why this went off the rails so horribly,” said Richard Saver, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, who at CNN’s request reviewed medical and legal documents that the family and law enforcement officials provided to CNN. Art Caplan, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University School of Medicine, also reviewed the documents, and he agrees. “This should never have happened,” he said. “This is a cautionary tale.” A Christmas Day aneurysm The relationship between Alyssa’s family and the Mayo Clinic started off well. On Christmas morning 2016, Alyssa settled in with a mug of hot chocolate to open her gifts. She was surrounded by her large family: her mother, Amber Engebretson, a stay-at-home mom; Duane Engebretson, her stepfather since she was 4 years old, who manages a construction company and the family’s farms; and her five younger siblings, then 18 months to 11 years old. They live in Sherburn, Minnesota, population just over 1,000 people, about 150 miles southwest of Minneapolis, on a farm with sheep, cows, horses and pigs. Alyssa was thrilled with her first Christmas present: a pair of cowboy boots emblazoned with the emblem of the Future Farmers of America, her favorite club. Then she went to the bathroom. Her parents heard screaming. “Mom, I need you!” Alyssa yelled as she lay curled up on the floor, vomiting. It was immediately obvious this was much more than just a stomach bug. Her left side was very weak, and she couldn’t hear out of her left ear. “You could see looking at her that she was petrified,” her stepfather said. He called an ambulance. A local hospital determined that Alyssa, who’d always been healthy, had a ruptured brain aneurysm: A blood vessel inside her brain had suddenly and unexpectedly burst. Surgeons explained that her life was on the line. They drilled a hole in her skull to relieve the pressure on her brain. A nurse gave her parents a bag of Alyssa’s hair, which had been shaved off for the operation. Some people liked to have it, she said. Amber and Duane cried as they considered that this bag of hair — their daughter’s long, beautiful hair — might be all they had left if she died. They begged to have her sent to the Mayo Clinic. The main campus for the world-renowned medical center was 85 miles away in Rochester, Minnesota. “They’re the best. People come from all over the world to go to Mayo,” said Alyssa’s mother, Amber Engebretson, who worked as a vehicle inspector for the Minnesota State Patrol before staying home to care for her family. But Alyssa couldn’t get to Mayo immediately. There was an ice storm. Ambulances couldn’t drive, and helicopters couldn’t fly. The weather eventually broke, and about 7 p.m. — about nine hours after the aneurysm — Alyssa finally arrived by ambulance at Mayo headquarters in Rochester. On Christmas night, surgeons gave her a 2% chance of living, her parents said. Doctors wrote in her medical record that her prognosis was “grim.” Her parents reached out on Facebook for prayers. They called their daughter the #Christmasmiraclegirl. Alyssa lived up to that name. She survived, thanks to four brain surgeries over the next month. Her doctors were ecstatic. “They were like, she’s not supposed to be here. She beat the odds,” her stepfather said. “Mayo neurosurgeons saved her life,” added her mother. “We’ll be grateful to them forever.” On January 30, Alyssa was transferred from the neurology unit to the rehabilitation unit. It should have been a happy turning point. But that’s when the troubles began. Tensions flare Although all had gone smoothly on the neurology floor, the family got into conflicts with the rehab staff almost immediately. First, doctors there wanted to take Alyssa off oxycodone, a powerful opioid painkiller that the neurology doctors had prescribed for pain after surgery. Her most recent surgery — the fourth in one month — had been just a few days before. “She’d lay in bed with tears coming out of her eyes because she was in so much pain,” her stepfather said. Many medical authorities, including the Mayo Clinic’s website, say opioids are critical for post-surgical pain management. A week after Alyssa arrived on the rehabilitation floor, her mother shared her feelings on Facebook. “[Alyssa’s] and my frustration level was high and it seems that they just don’t listen sometimes,” Amber wrote on February 7. More disputes arose. Her parents say their daughter’s breathing tube was the wrong size, and they had to pester doctors to get it corrected. They also say the family — not doctors — discovered that she had a bladder infection. They say a social worker discussed private financial information within earshot of visiting friends and relatives. Her parents asked for the social worker and a doctor to be replaced. “We just need someone who will at least listen to us and hear us,” Amber wrote on her Facebook page on February 20. Alyssa’s parents say that at their request, they had a meeting with her care team on February 21. “I had two whiteboards filled up with questions left unanswered, tests left undone, and every other question we could think of,” Amber wrote on her Facebook page that day. Amber says that at one point during that meeting, she told the staff she felt like they “don’t give a f***,” later apologizing for her language. She also asked for a second doctor to stop taking care of their daughter. “We took no crap and laid it all on the line. … Because seriously what do we have to lose at this point,” Amber wrote on Facebook that night. Mayo kicks Mom out On February 22, the day after that meeting, Amber got into a disagreement with a nursing aide and asked to have her removed from her daughter’s care team. She was the fourth staffer the family had asked to be replaced in just three weeks. That afternoon, Amber says, she was scheduled to have a meeting with the social worker — the same one she’d asked to leave her daughter’s care. Amber had requested the meeting, and she says that as she approached the office at the appointed time, a man she’d never seen was standing in the office doorway. She said he saw her coming and went into the office and shut the door. Amber listened through the door. She says that as she suspected, the man and the social worker were talking about her family. “I proceeded to open the door and say, ‘Since you’re talking about my family, I think it’s only appropriate that I would be here also, to be included in the conversation,’ ” she remembers. She says the man puffed out his chest and stepped toward her, and she took a backward step into the hall. The man, who Amber later learned was a physician, demanded that she leave. She says the man told her, “I run this whole rehab unit. Do you understand me?” Amber describes the doctor as “intensely aggressive.” She replied to him, she says, with similar aggression and frustration: “I need to talk to you. Do you understand me?” The doctor walked away. CNN reached out to this doctor and other staff members involved in Alyssa’s care but did not receive responses. About an hour later, Alyssa’s parents say, the same doctor, the social worker and a nurse approached the family. They were accompanied by three security guards. “[The doctor] said to me, ‘You are not allowed to participate in Alyssa’s care. You are not allowed on Mayo property. You will be escorted off the premises right now,’ ” Amber remembers. Amber and Duane say they asked why Amber was being kicked out but did not receive an answer. Later, a social worker would tell police that “Amber interrupted a meeting because Amber was upset over the care Alyssa was receiving. Due to that incident, Amber was escorted off of [Mayo] property.” According to Alyssa’s parents, the doctor told Duane that he could stay but that he would not be allowed to have any involvement in his stepdaughter’s care. The couple say they asked the doctor whether they could speak with a patient advocate. “He said, ‘There is no patient advocate,’ and walked away,” Amber said. When asked about Amber’s dismissal from the hospital, Mayo spokeswoman Plumbo sent CNN a statement. “Our care teams act in the best interests of our patients. As a general practice, this includes sharing information with family members and facilitating family visits and interactions with patients and their care providers when the patient is in our care. However, in situations where care may be compromised or the safety and security of our staff are potentially at risk, the family members’ ability to be present in the hospital may be restricted.” Plumbo did not elaborate on whether or how Amber compromised her daughter’s care or placed staff at risk. “We would never compromise her care,” Amber said. “She’s our daughter. We love her.” She also says she never put staff members at risk. “We would never do that — ever,” she said. On February 23, the day after Amber was kicked out, she went on Facebook. “PRAYER WARRIORS UNITE!!!! We need your help. … Please READ THIS AND SHARE THIS POST in hopes it reaches the people or person who can help us,” she wrote. “I HAVE BEEN TOLD I AM NOT ALLOWED IN ALYSSA’S ROOM AND NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY SAY OR PARTICIPATE IN HER [CARE]. … I AM NOT ALLOWED TO SEE HER!! We have been given no reason why, no paperwork, and no explanations,” she continued. “I never imagined something like this could happen in our world and a very hard situation already has been made even harder!!” The response from one Facebook user led the family to conclude that they needed to get Alyssa out of Mayo, and fast. ‘Basically a prisoner at Mayo’ Alyssa, who was legally an adult during her entire hospitalization, says that around this time, she started asking doctors and nurses to transfer her to another facility. She says she never received a response. “They were cruel to me,” Alyssa said, adding that she wanted to get out of Mayo “as bad as possible.” On February 23, three weeks into her daughter’s stay in rehab, Amber complained on Facebook, tagging Mayo. “They refuse to let her go. … We cannot transfer [Alyssa] out or get her discharged,” she wrote. “No one has any say in [Alyssa’s care] and she is basically a prisoner of Mayo.” Alyssa’s stepfather and grandmother say they also asked to have her transferred out of Mayo. “I asked two to three times a day, and it would go nowhere,” Duane said. “Duane said, ‘This is ridiculous. We don’t want her here; Alyssa doesn’t want to be here; she doesn’t feel safe here,’ ” her grandmother Aimee Olson remembers. “But there was no response.” Duane says he tried to talk to a senior doctor on the rehab staff about a transfer. It was the same doctor who had asked his wife to leave the hospital. “He said ‘I have nothing to say to you. This is a legal problem,’ ” Duane remembers. “I even asked him, ‘can I speak to your supervisor, your boss,’ and his exact words were ‘I run this whole floor,’ and [he] turned around and walked out of the room, and that was it.’ Duane says he called the Mayo Patient Experience office and in a 45-minute phone call described the family’s grievances. He said the patient experience specialist told him he would be back in touch after getting Mayo’s side of the story. Olson, Alyssa’s grandmother and Amber’s mother, said she also tried to speak with the senior doctor but was told he wasn’t available. “She was truly being held captive,” Olson said. “I would never believe a hospital could do that — never in my wildest dreams.” The family and a friend say they were instructed by Mayo staff not to talk to Alyssa about her mother. Two nurses were assigned to be with Alyssa, and they kept careful watch, according to visitors. “It was like they were watching every move you made,” said Joy Schmitt, Alyssa’s boyfriend’s mother, who visited frequently after Amber was asked to leave the hospital. ‘They were taking over our daughter’ On February 21, the day before her mother was kicked out of the hospital, a Mayo psychiatrist examined Alyssa and found that she lacked the capacity to make her own medical decisions, according to a summary of her care that her doctors wrote after she left Mayo. Around this time, a hospital social worker went to adult protection services in two counties to try to get those authorities to get guardianship over Alyssa, according to the police. If they had succeeded, she would have become a ward of the state. Alyssa and her family say that they weren’t told any of this as it was happening but that around this time, they started to feel that Mayo was isolating Alyssa. On February 26, staffers confiscated Alyssa’s cell phone, laptop and tablet after finding that she’d made a video for her mother, according to Alyssa and her family. They say Alyssa’s visitors were also banned from bringing their devices into the hospital. The same day, Mayo staffers said no one would be allowed to stay overnight with Alyssa, according to Duane and Amber’s sister, April Chance, who attended a meeting with Alyssa’s care team. Duane says he asked the staff to reconsider. He said his stepdaughter had never spent the night alone in the hospital. But he says they refused. “The doctors said they were doing this for Alyssa’s own benefit,” Duane said. The family says the doctors also told them that visitors would no longer be allowed to attend Alyssa’s treatment sessions, such as physical and occupational therapy. “I said, ‘We’re her cheerleaders. We cheer her on,’ ” her aunt remembers. “And they said ‘No, you’re impeding her care.’ ” She said the staff didn’t elaborate on how they were impeding her care. “They were restricting us little by little from even being with Alyssa. They were taking over our daughter,” Duane said. Mayo also pushed back Alyssa’s discharge date, which was supposed to be February 27. Meanwhile, her mother’s following was growing on Facebook, with many users posting angry messages that tagged Mayo. One woman sent Amber links to stories about a teenager named Justina Pelletier. Articles in The Boston Globe and elsewhere described how in 2013, Pelletier, then 14 years old, was placed in state custody for nearly 16 months after Boston Children’s Hospital accused her parents of interfering in her care. She spent much of that time in a psychiatric ward. Amber says she spoke on the phone with Justina’s parents, Linda and Lou Pelletier. She says they warned her there would be signs that the hospital was seeking guardianship for their daughter. They would keep a tight watch over her and limit her communications with her family. Through their lawyer, John T. Martin, the Pelletiers confirmed that they had conversations with Amber. A spokeswoman for Boston Children’s Hospital told CNN that the hospital is “committed to the best interest of our patients’ health and well-being” and declined to discuss the specifics of the case. Amber sent a text to the woman who’d sent her the news articles. “OMG I am SICK. This is what is happening,” Amber wrote. “It rings lots and lots of bells. … Omg … I am so scared.” A Mayo board member steps in Alyssa’s parents reached out to a friend of a friend for help: Mark Gaalswyk, who at the time was a member of the board of directors for the Mayo Clinic Health System in Fairmont, Minnesota. Gaalswyk emailed a Mayo Clinic vice president. He informed her of the situation and explained that CNN had contacted the family. “Could you please please do what you can to get your arms around the [situation] immediately?!” he wrote. “Please get to the bottom of this quickly before it blows up even more.” But Gaalswyk’s pull wasn’t enough. He says Mayo treated Alyssa “terribly.” “I’m probably the most pro-Mayo person who has walked the face of this earth,” said Gaalswyk, who left the board January 1. “But this was a mess.” He said he thinks Amber probably “used words she shouldn’t have” with hospital staff. “I’m not saying that Amber is 100 percent in the right,” he added, “but I know what Mayo did is not OK at all.” In its statement to CNN, the Mayo spokeswoman said that “Mayo Clinic is committed to the safety and wellbeing of all the patients we treat.” Feeling like they were running out of options, Alyssa’s parents then enlisted the help of Karie Rego, an attorney and patient advocate they’d met on Facebook. On February 27, Rego spoke on the phone with Joshua Murphy, Mayo’s chief legal officer, and faxed him a letter urging Mayo to transfer Alyssa to another facility. “Given what has happened here, an expedited transfer this coming week would be best for everyone,” she wrote. Rego says an attorney in Murphy’s office called her later. She says that he told her he couldn’t speak with her and that she never heard anything more from Mayo’s legal department. That night, Alyssa’s parents thought about Justina Pelletier and the 16 months she spent in state custody. They went online and printed a form for Alyssa to sign, saying she was leaving the hospital against medical advice. But her parents didn’t know how they would get her out. Two nurses were assigned to keep watch over her at all times. They started to hatch a plan to get her out of Mayo the very next day... RITAREVOLUTION.com IS THE RITA REVOLUTION! THE TRANSPLANTED ORGANS The Liver Although Dr. Starzl played a seminal role in establishing kidney transplantation, liver transplantation was his unique accomplishment and was the main subject of 461 of his nearly 1700 peer-reviewed publications [ref 4]. By separately addressing the multiple obstacles to liver replacement in more than 150 dog experiments between 1958-61 (See: The Dog Liver Models), he elucidated principles of organ preservation, transplant pathophysiology, and surgical technology that were generalizable to all other kinds of allografts. The only learning curve that remained when he obtained a supply of azathioprine in 1962 was how to efficiently apply the drugs. This was accomplished in less than 4 months with round-the-clock canine liver and kidney experiments. After the consequent resurrection of the fading hopes of human renal transplantation (See: Kidney Transplantation), liver transplantation (Figure 1) was swept up by the momentum of the kidney successes. Between March 1 and October 4, 1963, Starzl attempted 5 human liver replacements. The first patient bled to death during the operation. The other 4 died after 6.5 to 23 days with functioning grafts that had little evidence at autopsy of rejection or preservation injury [ref 1]. Instead, death had been caused by multiple site infections. Lung infections were associated with pulmonary emboli that formed in and migrated from the veno-venous bypasses that had been an essential component of the canine liver operation (See: The Dog Liver Models). There also were failed single attempts in Boston (Francis D. Moore, September 1963) and Paris (Demirleau, January 1964). All liver transplant activity in humans now ceased worldwide until the summer of 1967. The operation had come to be perceived as too difficult to ever be tried again. During the self-imposed liver moratorium, Starzl’s kidney transplant program flourished, with emphasis on studies of tissue (HLA) matching (See: The Science & Politics of Tissue Matching). However, most of the activity in his animal research laboratory was liver transplant-driven. The goal was to make a broad range of improvements in the operative procedure (Figure 2), organ preservation, control of blood coagulation, and above all, immunosuppression (See: Drug Immunosuppression). In addition, patterns of infection spread to and from the canine liver grafts were mapped. It also was shown that a venovenous bypass was not mandatory in dogs whose development of venous collaterals had been encouraged by previous bile duct ligation. Most importantly, there was an evolving consensus that “brain death” was a better way to define the end of cadaver donor life than the historically-rooted “cessation of heartbeat and respiration”. The time had come to restart the human liver program. Beginning in July 1967, multiple examples of prolonged human liver recipient survival were produced under immunosuppression with azathioprine, prednisone, and ALG [ref 2]. Julie Rodriguez, the child sitting on the knee of the Swedish surgeon, Carl Groth (Figure 3), became the first human liver recipient with survival exceeding one year. The heartbreaking sacrifices made by her parents and the lifelong bond between Dr. Starzl and the family are evident in the correspondence and other memorabilia of the Archives. After her death from graft-related complications, Dietrich Grunewald, a Swedish artist living in New Mexico, created a symbolic portrait entitled “In Memoriam Julie Rodriguez, January 1, 1966 to August 26, 1968” (Figure 4). It has been in Dr. Starzl’s home or office for the last 45 years and will go to the Archives after his death for preservation in perpetuity. By 1969, Dr. Starzl had acquired enough successful liver cases to produce “Experience in Hepatic Transplantation”as a companion text for his 1964 kidney book, “Experience in Renal Transplantation”. Forty-two years later, Professor Jan Lerut of Louvain University acknowledged the historical role of the 2 books in his 2011 magisterial lecture to the Royal Belgium Academy of Medicine (Figure 5). In a second slide, Professor Lerut acknowledged the swarm of ideas and innovations that had been disseminated worldwide by the books (Figure 6). It had been emphasized in both textbooks that improvements with any kind of organ allograft would be applicable to all other kinds. The view was prophetic. Within 2 years after the first successful liver case, human heart (Capetown), lung (Louvain), and pancreas (Minneapolis) transplantations were accomplished, all with the immunosuppression regimen of azathioprine, prednisone, and ALG. However, the promise of liver transplantation and of the other non-renal organs was unfulfilled for the next dozen years. Half or more of Starzl’s liver recipients treated between 1967-79 died in the first post-transplant year. The same was true in 4 newly-formed European liver transplant centers. The first was founded in 1968 by Sir Roy Calne (Cambridge, Eng.), followed in the 1970s by Henri Bismuth (Paris), Rudolph Pichlmayr (Hannover), and Rudi Krom (Groningen, Holland). Much of the medical-scientific, logistic, and administrative framework of hepatic transplantation that exists today was developed by the mutually-supportive single American and 4 European centers. Most of indications for liver transplant candidacy were obvious. Less obvious indications included inheritable disorders with known biochemical explanations (for example, Wilson’s disease of the liver). In reverse order, the acid test of liver transplantation ultimately helped elucidate the mechanisms of inborn errors (e.g. hypercholesterolemia) that had been palliated by portacaval shunt (See: Hepatotrophic Physiology). Despite its obvious potential, liver transplantation bore the label “feasible but impractical” until Starzl combined cyclosporine with dose-maneuverable prednisone in the same algorithmic strategy that he had used to exploit azathioprine 2 decades earlier (See: Drug Immunosuppression). Liver and kidney recipients were the first to benefit. Eleven of the first 12 liver recipients treated in Colorado with cyclosporine-based immunosuppression during 1979-80 survived for more than one year. In December 1980, Starzl moved from Colorado to the University of Pittsburgh where the efficacy of cyclosporine was established for transplantation of all of the other major organs. In December 1981, the promising developments in liver transplantation were reported to C. Everett Koop, the United States Surgeon General. Koop promptly initiated a Consensus Development Conference for liver transplantation that would include input from the 4 European centers. Prior to the Conference, Dr. Starzl prepared a summary of his American experience for presentation on November 1, 1982, at the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) and publication in Hepatology the same month [ref 4, item 3]. An updated version was presented to the Consensus Development Conference on June 20-23, 1983. The conclusion of the consensus committee was that liver transplantation had become a “clinical service” as opposed to an experimental procedure. The resulting world-wide stampede to develop liver transplant centers was even more dramatic than that of kidney transplantation 20 years earlier. Only 6 years later, a 17 page article equally divided between the October 12 and October 19 issues of the New England Journal of Medicine (321:1014-1022, 1989; 321:1092-1099, 1989) began with the following statement: “The conceptual appeal of liver transplantation is so great that the procedure may come to mind as a last resort for virtually every patient with lethal hepatic disease.” It already was evident that the demand for the operation would greatly exceed both an identifiable source of organs and those qualified to transplant them. In the meantime, the waiting list for liver transplant candidacy grew exponentially, the consequences of which are described more fully in the documents that Dr. Starzl refers to as the “Paper Graveyard.” The shortage of transplant surgeons was relieved by surgical fellows who flocked to Pittsburgh for clinical training and started independent programs elsewhere. Their education was facilitated by a change in the strategy of the operation. After it had been learned in 1963 that the potentially dangerous veno-venous bypasses were not obligatory for survival, their use was abandoned for almost 20 years. As a consequence, many liver replacements were carried out in a crisis atmosphere in which speedy performance of the vascular anastomoses was paramount. In 1982-83, a pump-driven veno-venous bypass (Figure 7) was developed, tested in dogs, and applied clinically [ref 4, item 7]. Now it was possible to do liver replacement in a relatively tranquil ambiance with reduced bleeding and minimal disturbances of blood pressure and other measures of cardiovascular function. By the mid-1990’s the resulting exponential growth of qualified surgeons had largely caught up with the national and international need. Almost every liver transplant program director in the United States and those in of most other countries could trace their paternal or grand-paternal lineage to Dr. Starzl. However, Starzl was not finished. Beginning in 1986, he set in motion preclinical studies of tacrolimus in Pittsburgh that led to its fast-track FDA approval and its substitution for cyclosporine (See: Drug Immunosuppression). The result was improved survival with liver (Figure 8) and ultimately all other kinds of commonly performed organ transplantation. In addition, tacrolimus elevated the liver-inclusive multivisceral and intestine-alone transplant procedures developed 3 decades earlier in dogs to the status of “clinical service” (See: Multivisceral & Intestine Transplantation). The influence of the early (1963-69) publications cited in this Discussion is evident in that these reports continue to be cited almost 50 years following their first appearances in the medical literature (Figure 9). The impact of the total collection of publications related to liver transplantation is even more remarkable: As shown in Figure 10, annual citation frequency exceeded 1600, or over 4 times per day, in the 1990s. Even today, this collection is cited over 600 times per annum. Edward H McWhirter Publicly subscribed to you (5 years) • 5 years ago Here is latest threat texted to Edward Howard McWhirter (412-313-3080) 6/19/2015 (8:42 AM) by Daniel A Onorato's Highmark hit man Joseph M Carney (412-320-5284)... "You really don't have to learn the hard way. Those lessons are vivid and painful. Sometimes our stubborn sin, even when graciously forgiven, results in irreversible life circumstances. God said, "If my people would only listen to me, if Israel would only follow my ways," I have great things for you.Psalm81" Show less REPLY 0 replies PittBird • 3 years ago NOT FIXING BED SO RITA CONLEY WILL DROWN IN HER OWN GERD-INDUCED BLOODY STOMACH FLUID IS CRIMINAL. REPLY 1 reply 1 ENDAFRAUD MEANS LET'S END THE "BRAIN DEATH" FRAUD... NOT FOR KIDS--PITTBIRD CARD COUNTING...There'll be time enough for countin' When the dealing's done! ChangedaWorld ChangedaWorld Publicly subscribed to you (3 months) • 3 months ago My heart goes out to you and I totally support your movement and your search for justice... Play your cards right ❤ PittBird • 3 years ago NOT FIXING BED SO RITA CONLEY WILL DROWN IN HER OWN GERD-INDUCED BLOODY STOMACH FLUID IS CRIMINAL. REPLY 1 reply PittBird • 5 years ago HAMPTON POLICE EMAILED OF MURDER IN PROGRESS & MO BY DR HOYT & DID NOTHING ALLISON PARK PGH PA 15101 REPLY 0 replies NOT FOR KIDS--PITTBIRD CARD COUNTING...There'll be time enough for countin' When the dealing's done! ChangedaWorld ChangedaWorld Publicly subscribed to you (3 months) • 3 months ago My heart goes out to you and I totally support your movement and your search for justice... Play your cards right ❤ PittBird • 3 years ago NOT FIXING BED SO RITA CONLEY WILL DROWN IN HER OWN GERD-INDUCED BLOODY STOMACH FLUID IS CRIMINAL. REPLY 1 reply PittBird • 3 years ago YES GOOD OLD BROTHER-STABBING BEN QUIETLY WATCHED YOUR ANCESTORS (and your brothers and sisters, parents, etc) GET TERRORIZED TO DEATH VIA FABRICATED BRAIN-DEATH, FOLLOWED BY ORGAN "DONATION" (SUPERVISED IN PITTSBURGH, BY AGH CHIEF OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, DOCTOR JOHN W HOYT AND NEUROLOGIST, DR JAMES P VALERIANO), IN AMERICA'S 5000 HOSPITALS, SINCE 23 DECEMBER 1963 (DATE OF THE FIRST IRS MURDER-BY-DONATION OF A HEALTHY PATIENT, AFTER SIMULATED AND FABRICATED BRAIN-DEATH)...In Alegheny County, this terror has been covered up by KDKA neurologist Dr Maria E Simbra, since 12 May 2002... Most of these Petition threats were posted after circling the HIGHMARK BUILDING downtown Pittsburgh, but a couple were posted, referring to my car, which hadn't left Bellevue 15202, WHERE DAN FREQUENTLY FREQUENTS on foot. WPAHS IS ELITIST-RECOGNIZED FOR 211-911 SCREAMING TERRORIST 222-DAY SACRIFICE OF HEALTHY PATIENT R Public Public Private Unlisted ITA JOANNE CONLEY 24/7, FOR ORGANS. YES, Dan Onorato is the STATE political hatchet man for WPAHS/AHN/HIGHMARK and locally Debbie D Olszewski ESQ is the LOCAL "judicial" hatchet man for WPAHS' sucking of the AMA MURDER-FOR-ORGANS DICK. CONNECTION?...DAN ONORATO AND RITA CONLEY GREW UP IN THE SAME EXACT NEIGHBORHOOD ONLY 3 YEARS APART, EACH HAVE A SON, BOTH SONS HAVING PLAYED IN THE SAME BHAA BASEBALL LEAGUE FOR YEARS (RITA'S SON'S LAST NAME IS MCWHIRTER and I drove the white Lincoln to practices/games with "AGH...LET RITA TALK!" written all over it), BOTH SONS PLAYING ON THE EXACT SAME COLT TEAM, AS I TYPE, AND I WAS FIGHTING TO SAVE RITA'S LIFE AGAINST AGH AND PA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON A WORLD-WIDE BASIS (AND DAN WAS THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY EXECUTIVE DURING RITA'S ENTIRE "MEDICAL " SITUATION, FROM 2-01-11 UNTIL HER DEATH ON 9-10-11, at which time DAN got the $900,000/year Highmark Lobby Job in December for a JOB WELL DONE). ATTORNIES...PRESOLVED...WORLD'S BIGGEST MALPRACTICE & WRONGFUL DEATH SUIT...SEE BLACKANGOLD.COM FOR SIMPLE PROOF & MEDICAL RECORDS, THANK YOU, EDWARD HOWARD MCWHIRTER (EX BIOCHEMISTRY STUDENT, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH)... NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR MURDER... Hyperventilation (Cerebral Hypoxia) is Extreme Torture, as per trying to breathe with a strong wind blowing in your face 24/7 for 7.5 months! OH, I WAS CONTACTED BY BEI THE DAY BEFORE THE MURDER (COMPLETE ORGAN FAILURE OUT OF NOWHERE) AND THE DAY AFTER ALSO (ORGAN FAILURE WAS JUST A DOCTOR'S SIMULATION TO HAVE ME HAVE THE PLUG PULLED), BUT NOTHING FOR THE MANY MONTHS SINCE INITIAL COMPLAINT...OBSTRUCTION OF THIS VIDEO IS OBSTUCTION OF JUSTICE... SEE STYROYOU CHANNEL FOR ARREST DECLARATION... JESSE JAMES VENTURA CONSPIRACY THEORY...THIS ONE'S FOR YOU BUD... WORSE THAN 7.5 MONTHS STRAIGHT WATERBOARDING...TO Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, and Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z advanced affairs alex amy andrew anil antonios associates athletic attorney aubry becky bhaa bibianna bill billie brenda brian bryan cardiac charles chris christine christopher chuck communications curtis cyril dan daniel david debbie deborah deborra district drew eddie edgar eric ghazaleh grant harry hazel hughes james janelle jen joe ticu jim jinelle joanne joel john joseph judge justin kamyar katherine kathleen kdka keith kelly ken kenneth kevin kim law lieutenant linda little louik mark maria marvin mary melissa menon meredith michele missy mitt nancy newt nilima north nursing oleans olena olszewski pat paul pittsburgh micu ralph rebecca rick ron sandeep schutjer south stephen steve strabane rachel rebecca rich richard rita robert robin ron ronald roy schlicher scott sheri sherri state susan syed tamara teresa tom thomas valerie vicky vijata acms association balaan baron barker baser biederman berger bigdeli bogar broaddus broadus brown carlin catalano cattaneo childress christou cohen colt conley canonsburg corbett daffner dash davidson doichev edwards emery vascular technologist engleka epstein evans firm gates general ghezzi gingrich gorham government green greenspan grewal herb heights hills hochendoner holder home hospital hoyt hungarford hussaini ilkhanipour iannotti jones judson kane kelly klepchick kocay krull league leroy luc rdcs mancini mccormic mccormick melani monah morgan matthews mathews meyers odell o'dell olszewski onorato paul peirce penguins pennsylvania perez pierce pirates pms police price moyles napolitano rana richardson romney rosen sanikommu santorum schlicher shawn singh snyder spade sprowls steelers surgical tunstall upmc usmc usn seals valeriano wallace ward wecht williamson wingard wtae young zaiser zappala zubi doctor dr md medical doctor PittBird 3 years ago YES GOOD OLD BROTHER-STABBING BEN QUIETLY WATCHED YOUR ANCESTORS (and your brothers and sisters, parents, etc) GET TERRORIZED TO DEATH VIA FABRICATED BRAIN-DEATH, FOLLOWED BY ORGAN "DONATION" (SUPERVISED IN PITTSBURGH, BY AGH CHIEF OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, DOCTOR JOHN W HOYT AND NEUROLOGIST, DR JAMES P VALERIANO), IN AMERICA'S 5000 HOSPITALS, SINCE 23 DECEMBER 1963 (DATE OF THE FIRST IRS MURDER-BY-DONATION OF A HEALTHY PATIENT, AFTER SIMULATED AND FABRICATED BRAIN-DEATH)...In Alegheny County, this terror has been covered up by KDKA neurologist Dr Maria E Simbra, since 12 May 2002... Most of these Petition threats were posted after circling the HIGHMARK BUILDING downtown Pittsburgh, but a couple were posted, referring to my car, which hadn't left Bellevue 15202, WHERE DAN FREQUENTLY FREQUENTS on foot. WPAHS IS ELITIST-RECOGNIZED FOR 211-911 SCREAMING TERRORIST 222-DAY SACRIFICE OF HEALTHY PATIENT R Public Public Private Unlisted ITA JOANNE CONLEY 24/7, FOR ORGANS. YES, Dan Onorato is the STATE political hatchet man for WPAHS/AHN/HIGHMARK and locally Debbie D Olszewski ESQ is the LOCAL "judicial" hatchet man for WPAHS' sucking of the AMA MURDER-FOR-ORGANS DICK. CONNECTION?...DAN ONORATO AND RITA CONLEY GREW UP IN THE SAME EXACT NEIGHBORHOOD ONLY 3 YEARS APART, EACH HAVE A SON, BOTH SONS HAVING PLAYED IN THE SAME BHAA BASEBALL LEAGUE FOR YEARS (RITA'S SON'S LAST NAME IS MCWHIRTER and I drove the white Lincoln to practices/games with "AGH...LET RITA TALK!" written all over it), BOTH SONS PLAYING ON THE EXACT SAME COLT TEAM, AS I TYPE, AND I WAS FIGHTING TO SAVE RITA'S LIFE AGAINST AGH AND PA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON A WORLD-WIDE BASIS (AND DAN WAS THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY EXECUTIVE DURING RITA'S ENTIRE "MEDICAL " SITUATION, FROM 2-01-11 UNTIL HER DEATH ON 9-10-11, at which time DAN got the $900,000/year Highmark Lobby Job in December for a JOB WELL DONE). ATTORNIES...PRESOLVED...WORLD'S BIGGEST MALPRACTICE & WRONGFUL DEATH SUIT...SEE BLACKANGOLD.COM FOR SIMPLE PROOF & MEDICAL RECORDS, THANK YOU, EDWARD HOWARD MCWHIRTER (EX BIOCHEMISTRY STUDENT, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH)... NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR MURDER... Hyperventilation (Cerebral Hypoxia) is Extreme Torture, as per trying to breathe with a strong wind blowing in your face 24/7 for 7.5 months! OH, I WAS CONTACTED BY BEI THE DAY BEFORE THE MURDER (COMPLETE ORGAN FAILURE OUT OF NOWHERE) AND THE DAY AFTER ALSO (ORGAN FAILURE WAS JUST A DOCTOR'S SIMULATION TO HAVE ME HAVE THE PLUG PULLED), BUT NOTHING FOR THE MANY MONTHS SINCE INITIAL COMPLAINT...OBSTRUCTION OF THIS VIDEO IS OBSTUCTION OF JUSTICE... SEE STYROYOU CHANNEL FOR ARREST DECLARATION... JESSE JAMES VENTURA CONSPIRACY THEORY...THIS ONE'S FOR YOU BUD... WORSE THAN 7.5 MONTHS STRAIGHT WATERBOARDING...TO Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, and Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z advanced affairs alex amy andrew anil antonios associates athletic attorney aubry becky bhaa bibianna bill billie brenda brian bryan cardiac charles chris christine christopher chuck communications curtis cyril dan daniel david debbie deborah deborra district drew eddie edgar eric ghazaleh grant harry hazel hughes james janelle jen joe ticu jim jinelle joanne joel john joseph judge justin kamyar katherine kathleen kdka keith kelly ken kenneth kevin kim law lieutenant linda little louik mark maria marvin mary melissa menon meredith michele missy mitt nancy newt nilima north nursing oleans olena olszewski pat paul pittsburgh micu ralph rebecca rick ron sandeep schutjer south stephen steve strabane rachel rebecca rich richard rita robert robin ron ronald roy schlicher scott sheri sherri state susan syed tamara teresa tom thomas valerie vicky vijata acms association balaan baron barker baser biederman berger bigdeli bogar broaddus broadus brown carlin catalano cattaneo childress christou cohen colt conley canonsburg corbett daffner dash davidson doichev edwards emery vascular technologist engleka epstein evans firm gates general ghezzi gingrich gorham government green greenspan grewal herb heights hills hochendoner holder home hospital hoyt hungarford hussaini ilkhanipour iannotti jones judson kane kelly klepchick kocay krull league leroy luc rdcs mancini mccormic mccormick melani monah morgan matthews mathews meyers odell o'dell olszewski onorato paul peirce penguins pennsylvania perez pierce pirates pms police price moyles napolitano rana richardson romney rosen sanikommu santorum schlicher shawn singh snyder spade sprowls steelers surgical tunstall upmc usmc usn seals valeriano wallace ward wecht williamson wingard wtae young zaiser zappala zubi doctor dr md medical doctor Edward H McWhirter 6 years ago DAN ONORATO??? Supporters Man In Black SKY CITY, AP · 3 months ago Like 0 Because I like peanuts --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some day THEY will come for you - you will wake up in a bath tub full of ice with one missing kidney and one missing lung. In fact they are watching you RIGHT NOW. Dont try and find the GPS trackers they planted inside your car because you wont even know what they look like. Eventually they will call you for a "ride" and then its game over. Its all part of the vast conspiracy. Former West Penn Allegheny manager charged with stealing $700k Adam Brandolph ADAM BRANDOLPH | Monday, February 25, 2013 2:18 p.m. Join the conversation () ptrwestpenn022613 ALLEGHENY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Ira L. Johnson, 52, of Penn Hills is facing 10 charges, including theft, unlawful use of a computer, receiving stolen property and misapplication of entrusted property. The Allegheny County District Attorney's Office on Monday, Feb. 25, 2013, charged the former West Penn Allegheny Health System manager with stealing more than $700,000. Allegheny County District Attorney's Office EMAIL NEWSLETTERS TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox. A former financial services manager for West Penn Allegheny Health System siphoned more than $700,000 from the struggling medical center to gamble at casinos in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Atlantic City, the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office said on Monday. Ira L. Johnson, 52, of Penn Hills is facing 10 charges, including theft, unlawful use of a computer, receiving stolen property and misapplication of entrusted property. The former manager of patient financial services and manager of revenue/cash receipts has a preliminary hearing scheduled for March 5. Johnson couldn’t be reached for comment. His wife declined comment. Authorities said Johnson funneled checks made out to Allegheny Medical Practice Network and West Penn Physician Practice Network into a PNC Bank business checking account that he opened on July 26, 2007. Detectives said Johnson withdrew money — sometimes more than $10,000 each time — at Rivers Casino on the North Shore, Meadows Racetrack and Casino in North Strabane, Presque Isle Downs in Erie, Mountaineer Casino Racetrack & Resort in Newell, W. Va., Harrah’s Chester Casino and Racetrack, Bally’s Atlantic City and Grand Victoria Casino outside Chicago. Bank statements showed no evidence that he used any of the money for West Penn Allegheny business, detectives said. Dan Laurent, a spokesman for the health system, said Johnson was employed from 2006 until he was fired on Nov. 8, 2011, a day after he deposited two checks totaling $350 into his account. West Penn Allegheny executives met with detectives from the district attorney’s office on Jan. 4, when an employee noticed suspicious activity. The company eventually conducted an internal audit, which uncovered the missing money. “Since we discovered his actions, we have thoroughly scrutinized and enhanced our internal control processes to deter any individual, regardless of work responsibility or intent, from perpetrating this type of crime again,” Laurent said. “WPAHS is grateful to the Pittsburgh police, Allegheny County and the District Attorney — all of whom responded immediately and are helping to ensure that justice is served in this case.” Laurent said West Penn Allegheny has insurance to protect itself from such theft and plans to file for reimbursement. Stephen Foreman, associate professor of health care administration at Robert Morris University, said the health system should have noticed the money was missing earlier. “It makes you wonder because if he was intercepting checks, there should have been other systems in place that would have caught that,” Foreman said. “They need to explain how their systems allowed this to happen.” The health system reported a $112.5 million operating loss in its most recent financial year, more than double the loss of the previous year. “They may not have paid as much attention to internal issues,” Foreman said. Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-391-0927 or abrandolph@tribweb.com. TribLIVE commenting policy HERE IS THE LATEST PERSONAL THREAT (on a Bill Gates population control video), the final statement being the following (after a good deal of setup, using religious scriptures, which is SOP with these people)...Moontrucker replied: "PittBird Sin exacts a penalty that WILL be paid. .. Either by Jesus or you. Please consider trusting him."..I do believe this is the same person who threatened me locally elsewhere around Father's Day of 2015, with the initials J.C.. Highlighted reply Moontrucker 1 day ago @PittBird I agree that statement was meant for that specific time but all of Creation is indicative of an Infinite Creator Intelligence. It is an ultra engineering masterpiece. We all ask at some time “If there is a God, why do I not know him, see him?” We are estranged from KNOWING our Creator bc of our sins(rebellion.) We all possess a conscience that tells us right from wrong unless we permanently sear it by refusing to recognize what is wrong behavior, rejecting it. The ONLY way we can ever Know God & be in a relationship with him is to accept his plan of Salvation in Jesus Christ. Sin or rebellion exacts a penalty. We inherited this condition from the progenitors of our race. Eden is not a myth. It was a dimension of Paradise. How do I know this is true? Because I searched for God & I found him. “When you have searched for me with all your heart then you will find me.” Jeremiah. Also after listening to the healing Scriptures for 6 wks, Jesus healed me from a possible cancerous mole that I saw SHRINK before my eyes. He came to this earth incarnating as a man to show us what God is like & to offer his guiltless life in place of ours so we could escape the penalty. Highlighted reply Moontrucker 1 day ago @PittBird Scripture was from the Holy Spirit of God. Roman Catholicism under Constantin began to misinterpret it. Exalted it’s traditions with the Bible. Became a “religion” where carnal men w/o God’s Spirit only wished to exert control, power over the ppl. The natural man cannot understand the spiritual. One must be indwelled by God’s Spirit. Highlighted reply Moontrucker 23 hours ago @PittBird Well, they are under God’s judgment & True Christians aren’t. 2 Chronicles says God will heal the land if Believers will repent of sins , pray & seek Him, he will forgive them & heal the land. That is in O.T. So I’m not sure if it applies today. But Revelation says a One World Gov’t ruled by the Anti Christ will come about. So it is going to happen. It will be BAD especially for Believers in Jesus but he promises to take care of them. Many believe they will be raptured bc it says the church is not appointed to wrath. I read this rapture as the Resurrection of Believers when Jesus returns. Highlighted reply Moontrucker 23 hours ago @PittBird Sin exacts a penalty that WILL be paid. .. Either by Jesus or you. Please consider trusting him. Highlighted reply Moontrucker 22 hours ago @PittBird yeah, I think that’s due to sin. From what I understand, The Garden of Eden was suppose to eventually spread over the whole earth if our ancestors had not mistrusted The Creator. In Eden only fruits & vegetables were eaten. Appears animals were also vegans & at peace with one another. I think YHWH(God) allowed Mankind to eat animals bc they would over populate on earth & starve. Outside the dimension of Eden, the earth evidently was harsh like it is today. Sin has affected everything. Bible says all creatures yearn for a better order of things. The above dialog is spot on, as to the Scripture-based text-message dialog between myself and CIA Agent Joseph M Carney (on Fathers Day, 2015)...I was then visited the very next month (7/25/2015), by Federal Marshal Tad Thompson (for the 2nd time, per 01/06/2013) along with a man in sniper garb (I believe an agent, by the name of Josh Stokes)...This, along with three other visits by Federal Marshals, is an indication that one is saying in public, is actually the truth (The Federal Government's only real job is to conceal the truth, via whatever means is necessary)...)... **************************** Comments on "Was His Wife Medically Kidnapped?" Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 3 days ago 1. Morphine in that situation... would mean the organ couldn't be used after being harvest. 2. If they were comatose, they wouldn't administer morphine. It's given to reduce pain. If you're comatose, you're incapable of feeling pain, thus no need for morphine. PittBird PittBird 2 days ago First of all, you can feel pain when comatose...Being in a coma only means that you can not respond to stimuli, usually because you are intentionally immobilized, via forced hyperventilation (per cerebral hypoxia) or paralytics (during the actual murder, via organ$ harvesting, followed by morphine overdose)...Morphine is administered only to destroy remaining organs (per evidence that there was no organ failure)..."Brain death" is simply coma (usually induced by the doctor), which criminal doctors then intentionally refuse to reverse (which they then convince the family is "irreversible coma")...Transplant surgeons (per vital organs) are medical terrorists (who couldn't give a rat's ass about your pain)... Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 2 days ago @PittBird You are confusing locked in syndrome and comatose. Locked In syndrome, you're aware for your environment, you've receiving stimuli but can't respond. By definition, if you're comatose, your brain is clearly alive doing something. However, that activity is NOT based on external sensory inputs of any kind. Nor is the person aware of pain, the passage of time, space, their environment or do they have any form of self awareness. However a comatose person can come out of this because there is little to no physical reason why they can't. People often awake from comas thinking no time has passed since they went in. Sometimes this can be days, weeks, months or years... and in rare cases decades. But they awoke, they thought it was still the year they went under. A comatose person is not brain dead. Their brains are functioning but just aren't doing what the brain ordinarily would. A brain dead person is one who is alive,,, but only in the sense that they have a heart beat and are breathing. They don't have brain activity because they don't have a living brain. Their Modula Oblongata still works and other organs are functioning though after awhile it tends to only be by artificial means. A brain dead person can't come back from this as they have damage to their brain, be from lack of oxygen, a blood clot or even physical trauma, that is so extensive that their brain is almost entirely dead tissue. 1 PittBird PittBird 2 days ago (edited) @Jesse Willey Do you understand the mechanism of cerebral hypoxia (as it is caused by forced hyperventilation, using a ventilator)? PittBird PittBird 2 days ago Vital organ$ are always harvested BEFORE the morphine overdose. PittBird PittBird 2 days ago (edited) @Jesse Willey Locked-in syndrome is rare and differs from being comatose in that it is (presumably) a real condition caused by some physiological defect in the brain...What I am referring to is the fraudulently-contrived condition of cerebral hypoxia (via forced hyperventilation), which shuts down your muscles (preventing your escape, from your known pending murder-by-donation)...Cerebral hypoxia is contrived in every Critical Care Unit, in every American hospital (for the purpose of Governmental genocide, while making trillions on the organ$ black market, for the perpetrators)...Brain death has always been a lie, invented in 1963 (then endorsed by criminal Harvard, in 1968)...CPR was promoted around this time, not for the purpose of saving the victim (very low survival rate), but mostly for saving vital organ$ (which are cut out, after which the victims obviously die)...The medical Industry has been a totally criminal enterprise, since 1963. Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 1 day ago The morphine level doesn't matter. During a transplant, help harmful risk drug is used to put someone under because even in small doses, you Unless you're saying the elite are not only harvesting organs but intentionally putting themselves at greater risk of cancer (which anyone who gets a transplant is) to not only get a lemon but also get themselves and opioid addiction without having taken the drugs. Think, McFly, think. Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 1 day ago @PittBird Locked In Syndrome exists. It can be found with a brain scan. What you're describing is tinfoil hat material came of out a bull's anus. The reason we saw a rise in 'brain death' cases in 1960s when we didn't before isn't some vast conspiracy. It is because: 1. The technology to do artificial life support came into wide use. 2. People conflate being alive (IE, using nutrients, breathing, heartbeat, and yes, able to reproduce) with the existence of any sort of consciousness. They are not connected. You can have a body breathing, with a heartbeat and fed through a tube for the entirety of someone's natural life span but have their brain just physically dead. It's all because letting someone die when there was literally nothing a doctor could do was one thing but not putting them on a machine when they can keep them 'alive' is... in many states... considered murder if the person doesn't have a DNR. (Most people don't.) Thus, for the past sixty years or so, had the technology to keep a person's body alive long after the part of a person that makes it a person is long gone has been widely available and hospitals have no choice but to use it. If this were actually happening, you'd think there wouldn't be an organ shortage. Everybody would be harvested against their will. But that's not what happens. Quite the opposite, hundreds of thousands of people die every year because people who could easily donate organs they aren't using anymore (being dead and all) but chose not to. I feel sorry for the guy. Not just for his loss... but for the fact that he let grief destroy any sense of logic. I totally get the need to feel like there is some sort of order to the universe in a case like this. How they'd want someone or something to blame because the truth is such a horrible burden to bare, especially alone. And the truth, the one truth about the universe, is this: 'None of us get out alive.' PittBird PittBird 1 day ago @Jesse Willey First of all, who said that locked-in syndrome does not exist? Your tin foil hat reference and name-calling tells me you are running out of material, which is good (because the big boys are soon going to tell you to drop the subject, before you embarrass yourself)...Secondly, "the guy" you refer to is me...I am an old pre-med biochemistry type (at PITT), from the early 70s...You are not going to run the table on me, simply with name-calling and disparaging remarks...I am willing to discuss medical terrorism in a logical way, until one of us is forced to admit we are wrong...I have been investigating my wife's murder for over 10 years now, so buckle up, if you want to continue... PittBird PittBird 1 day ago @Jesse Willey It would help if you would comment in complete sentences...Otherwise it's like trying to talk with Bill Clinton...The elite who get vital organ$ (from viable "patients") are not worried about a greater risk of cancer (due to immunosuppressant drugs)-They are worried about surviving the day (because of a non-functioning vital organ)...The point is mute (per how much morphine is used), as the vital organ$ are cut out (without anesthesia) BEFORE the morphine overdose. PittBird PittBird 1 day ago @Jesse Willey The elite don't get an opioid addiction by putting a morphine-tainted organ into their body...The big boys have surely told you to delete your entire comment by now? PittBird PittBird 1 day ago @Jesse Willey There was not a rise in brain death cases in the 1960s...Brain death was INVENTED in the 1960s. PittBird PittBird 1 day ago @Jesse Willey The reason we saw a rise in brain death in the 1960s (from 0 cases), is because the ventilator is what is used by our terrorist doctors TO CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF BRAIN DEATH (IN A VIABLE HUIMAN BEING), duh. PittBird PittBird 1 day ago If you are comatose, you indeed can feel pain, however you are incapable of responding to pain (due to hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia/immobilization, and the bypassing of your vocal cords)...If by some chance you escape your own medical murder (at which time paralytics are used, to prevent you from squirming all over the operating table), you will not remember your own personal holocaust (due to a combination usage of Propofol and Midazolam, which prevent the formation of new memories). Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 1 day ago Only if you disbelieve in something so basic as objective reality. But if you're that far gone-- well-- for all you know I'm actually nine inch wide odorless, invisible, inaudible, intangible, ring worm named Dave who lives inside your collar bone. There is no way you can disprove that... ergo it must be the truth. W Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 1 day ago Occam's Razor: Without the technology to keep someone alive whose brain is not function, you can't have a brain dead patient. Develop the tech to do so, with all the major religions not big on the whole suicide thing, not keeping them alive even without a functioning brain becomes malpractice at best and at worst criminally negligent homicide. People want to see a conspiracy because seeing deal with hard truths, especially when that traumatic, is a hard thing to do. Trust me, I've been there. But the reality is... there is no order, no all encompassing evil. There is just randomicity, the miracle of human compassion and the vicious human cruelty. Nothing less, nothing more. PittBird PittBird 1 day ago @Jesse Willey Perhaps it would help to say what you're talking about (instead of "objective reality")...Obviously reality is real, but exactly what are YOU talking about? PittBird PittBird 1 day ago (edited) @Jesse Willey Brain death is the definition of death, so how do you keep someone alive (who is already dead)? Organs do not function without a brain...You still haven't answered whether you understand hyperventilation- induced cerebral hypoxia? What you seem not to understand, is that these "brain dead" patients are perfectly fine (before they are intentionally hyperventilated). Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 23 hours ago @PittBird Things that can be proven with repeatable, observable and repeatable evidence. We can prove brain death occurs. Just put someone under an MRI and you can see it clear as day. To deny that, one is denying such an objective reality exists. Furthermore, you can look up the history of when ventilators came into more common use and states instigating laws regarding end of life issues. And they match up pretty closely. There is no evidence to support a conspiracy. In fact for it to be true, the objective reality would have to be ignored. All you have is an unfalsifiable claim. Such claims should be treated as false unless you present evidence otherwise. You are the the one who is making the claim. You're the one who has to prove there is a tea cup orbiting between Earth and Mars, not me. But your whole argument is... it's a conspiracy and if you had evidence, it wouldn't be a conspiracy. Circular reasoning. In other words, your whole argument is a tower of dung built inside of a flushing toilet. You got nothing. And as such, your opinions have no value other than as a living monument to the most powerful force on Earth. Human stupidity. PittBird PittBird 23 hours ago @Jesse Willey Who said anything about a conspiracy? Do you understand hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia? I am not interested in your flushing toilets and name-calling...Either you reference facts, or you run away from them...How about a little objective reality? Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 23 hours ago @PittBird Artificial life support. Such a person is living but only in a mechanical sense. They are breathing, they can take nutrients through a feeding tube and... as many people in the healthcare industry note... capable of reproduction. (Either because a wife wants a child and won't go with anyone other than their husband as the father. If they are next of kin they can legally ask for sperm to be collected.) Or as many care facilities find out, sexual assault of female patients. The brain is not required for something to be alive. To have personhood, yes. But being alive, no. Two completely different concepts. PittBird PittBird 23 hours ago @Jesse Willey "Things that can be proven with repeatable, observable and repeatable evidence".......You are repeating yourself. PittBird PittBird 23 hours ago @Jesse Willey Occam's razor requires that something be explained in the simplest of terms...So why would a breathing person (with a heartbeat) be considered brain dead (as in officially dead. per a cadaver), when it would be quite simpler to point out that the person is artificially being prevented from moving (and speaking)? PittBird PittBird 22 hours ago The purpose of the morphine overdose is to speed up the medical murder (after vital organ$ have already been cut out of the viable victim, and without anesthesia). Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 21 hours ago The purpose of the laws to allow this is to assuage and respect the patient's personal spiritual and religious beliefs. Which, while I don't agree with them... I do respect. Though I've let my close family and friends (and even those family members I'm not close to like my sister) that should something like that happen to me... let me go. Because if a person is kept alive by a machine, well, you're basically Robocop without the robot or the cop. Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 21 hours ago @PittBird The medical murder which you have yet to present indisputable evidence ever occurred. Give the names of the perps, trial dates, medical examiners reports, etc. to back up your claims. Documentation or it didn't happen. Otherwise, you get NOTHING. Good day, sir! PittBird PittBird 21 hours ago @Jesse Willey Any neurologist knows that if the brain actually dies, then the organs must be harvested IMMEDIATELY (to be transplanted)...There is no such thing as brain death (while on life support)...You still haven't told me whether you understand hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia? PittBird PittBird 20 hours ago @Jesse Willey Who is asking for anything? I am showing the methodology of medical terrorism (since 1963)...You, for some reason, take this as a challenge against you? I know for a fact that the state and federal governments work hand in hand (sponsoring this), and anyone else involved is just doing a job provided to them by the government (per mutual blackmail, since 1963). Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 14 hours ago No, you are making claims about it. Claims without evidence are nonsense. Show the evidence. whaddya got? Nothing. So as I said... there is no reason to listen to you. PittBird PittBird 9 hours ago @Jesse Willey I got actual science...The brain death you refer to is nothing more than a contrived low voltage on an EEG (for example), by intentional criminal forced hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia (which drastically reduces blood flow to the brain)...It is the job of a criminal anesthesiologist to ensure that this cerebral blood flow is low enough to immobilize the victim (without actually ever damaging the brain). PittBird PittBird 9 hours ago @Jesse Willey What law are you talking about? Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 6 hours ago @PittBird It varies from state to state. But almost every state requires you to assume someone would want to be on life support unless you have documentation saying otherwise. PittBird PittBird 6 hours ago @Jesse Willey And the reason is that almost all quality organ$ (for transplant) are retrieved from viable patients (who are intentionally made to appear brain dead, via the fraudulent use of a ventilator). Jesse Willey Highlighted reply Jesse Willey 1 hour ago @PittBird Again, show your evidence. Observable data or it didn't happen. PittBird PittBird 38 minutes ago (edited) @Jesse Willey Happens every day, in every "Critical Care" unit in America...Doesn't matter who shows what...America's owners own the courts (through the 93 US Attorneys, State Attorneys General, and District Attorneys, or equivalents). Comments on "Was His Wife Medically Kidnapped?"...Posted on this web site on 6/3/2021. Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 3 days ago 1. Morphine in that situation... would mean the organ couldn't be used after being harvest. 2. If they were comatose, they wouldn't administer morphine. It's given to reduce pain. If you're comatose, you're incapable of feeling pain, thus no need for morphine. PittBird PittBird 2 days ago First of all, you can feel pain when comatose...Being in a coma only means that you can not respond to stimuli, usually because you are intentionally immobilized, via forced hyperventilation (per cerebral hypoxia) or paralytics (during the actual murder, via organ$ harvesting, followed by morphine overdose)...Morphine is administered only to destroy remaining organs (per evidence that there was no organ failure)..."Brain death" is simply coma (usually induced by the doctor), which criminal doctors then intentionally refuse to reverse (which they then convince the family is "irreversible coma")...Transplant surgeons (per vital organs) are medical terrorists (who couldn't give a rat's ass about your pain)... Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 2 days ago @PittBird You are confusing locked in syndrome and comatose. Locked In syndrome, you're aware for your environment, you've receiving stimuli but can't respond. By definition, if you're comatose, your brain is clearly alive doing something. However, that activity is NOT based on external sensory inputs of any kind. Nor is the person aware of pain, the passage of time, space, their environment or do they have any form of self awareness. However a comatose person can come out of this because there is little to no physical reason why they can't. People often awake from comas thinking no time has passed since they went in. Sometimes this can be days, weeks, months or years... and in rare cases decades. But they awoke, they thought it was still the year they went under. A comatose person is not brain dead. Their brains are functioning but just aren't doing what the brain ordinarily would. A brain dead person is one who is alive,,, but only in the sense that they have a heart beat and are breathing. They don't have brain activity because they don't have a living brain. Their Modula Oblongata still works and other organs are functioning though after awhile it tends to only be by artificial means. A brain dead person can't come back from this as they have damage to their brain, be from lack of oxygen, a blood clot or even physical trauma, that is so extensive that their brain is almost entirely dead tissue. 1 PittBird PittBird 2 days ago (edited) @Jesse Willey Do you understand the mechanism of cerebral hypoxia (as it is caused by forced hyperventilation, using a ventilator)? PittBird PittBird 2 days ago Vital organ$ are always harvested BEFORE the morphine overdose. PittBird PittBird 2 days ago (edited) @Jesse Willey Locked-in syndrome is rare and differs from being comatose in that it is (presumably) a real condition caused by some physiological defect in the brain...What I am referring to is the fraudulently-contrived condition of cerebral hypoxia (via forced hyperventilation), which shuts down your muscles (preventing your escape, from your known pending murder-by-donation)...Cerebral hypoxia is contrived in every Critical Care Unit, in every American hospital (for the purpose of Governmental genocide, while making trillions on the organ$ black market, for the perpetrators)...Brain death has always been a lie, invented in 1963 (then endorsed by criminal Harvard, in 1968)...CPR was promoted around this time, not for the purpose of saving the victim (very low survival rate), but mostly for saving vital organ$ (which are cut out, after which the victims obviously die)...The medical Industry has been a totally criminal enterprise, since 1963. Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 1 day ago The morphine level doesn't matter. During a transplant, help harmful risk drug is used to put someone under because even in small doses, you Unless you're saying the elite are not only harvesting organs but intentionally putting themselves at greater risk of cancer (which anyone who gets a transplant is) to not only get a lemon but also get themselves and opioid addiction without having taken the drugs. Think, McFly, think. Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 1 day ago @PittBird Locked In Syndrome exists. It can be found with a brain scan. What you're describing is tinfoil hat material came of out a bull's anus. The reason we saw a rise in 'brain death' cases in 1960s when we didn't before isn't some vast conspiracy. It is because: 1. The technology to do artificial life support came into wide use. 2. People conflate being alive (IE, using nutrients, breathing, heartbeat, and yes, able to reproduce) with the existence of any sort of consciousness. They are not connected. You can have a body breathing, with a heartbeat and fed through a tube for the entirety of someone's natural life span but have their brain just physically dead. It's all because letting someone die when there was literally nothing a doctor could do was one thing but not putting them on a machine when they can keep them 'alive' is... in many states... considered murder if the person doesn't have a DNR. (Most people don't.) Thus, for the past sixty years or so, had the technology to keep a person's body alive long after the part of a person that makes it a person is long gone has been widely available and hospitals have no choice but to use it. If this were actually happening, you'd think there wouldn't be an organ shortage. Everybody would be harvested against their will. But that's not what happens. Quite the opposite, hundreds of thousands of people die every year because people who could easily donate organs they aren't using anymore (being dead and all) but chose not to. I feel sorry for the guy. Not just for his loss... but for the fact that he let grief destroy any sense of logic. I totally get the need to feel like there is some sort of order to the universe in a case like this. How they'd want someone or something to blame because the truth is such a horrible burden to bare, especially alone. And the truth, the one truth about the universe, is this: 'None of us get out alive.' PittBird PittBird 1 day ago @Jesse Willey First of all, who said that locked-in syndrome does not exist? Your tin foil hat reference and name-calling tells me you are running out of material, which is good (because the big boys are soon going to tell you to drop the subject, before you embarrass yourself)...Secondly, "the guy" you refer to is me...I am an old pre-med biochemistry type (at PITT), from the early 70s...You are not going to run the table on me, simply with name-calling and disparaging remarks...I am willing to discuss medical terrorism in a logical way, until one of us is forced to admit we are wrong...I have been investigating my wife's murder for over 10 years now, so buckle up, if you want to continue... PittBird PittBird 1 day ago @Jesse Willey It would help if you would comment in complete sentences...Otherwise it's like trying to talk with Bill Clinton...The elite who get vital organ$ (from viable "patients") are not worried about a greater risk of cancer (due to immunosuppressant drugs)-They are worried about surviving the day (because of a non-functioning vital organ)...The point is mute (per how much morphine is used), as the vital organ$ are cut out (without anesthesia) BEFORE the morphine overdose. PittBird PittBird 1 day ago @Jesse Willey The elite don't get an opioid addiction by putting a morphine-tainted organ into their body...The big boys have surely told you to delete your entire comment by now? PittBird PittBird 1 day ago @Jesse Willey There was not a rise in brain death cases in the 1960s...Brain death was INVENTED in the 1960s. PittBird PittBird 1 day ago @Jesse Willey The reason we saw a rise in brain death in the 1960s (from 0 cases), is because the ventilator is what is used by our terrorist doctors TO CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF BRAIN DEATH (IN A VIABLE HUIMAN BEING), duh. PittBird PittBird 1 day ago If you are comatose, you indeed can feel pain, however you are incapable of responding to pain (due to hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia/immobilization, and the bypassing of your vocal cords)...If by some chance you escape your own medical murder (at which time paralytics are used, to prevent you from squirming all over the operating table), you will not remember your own personal holocaust (due to a combination usage of Propofol and Midazolam, which prevent the formation of new memories). Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 1 day ago Only if you disbelieve in something so basic as objective reality. But if you're that far gone-- well-- for all you know I'm actually nine inch wide odorless, invisible, inaudible, intangible, ring worm named Dave who lives inside your collar bone. There is no way you can disprove that... ergo it must be the truth. W Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 1 day ago Occam's Razor: Without the technology to keep someone alive whose brain is not function, you can't have a brain dead patient. Develop the tech to do so, with all the major religions not big on the whole suicide thing, not keeping them alive even without a functioning brain becomes malpractice at best and at worst criminally negligent homicide. People want to see a conspiracy because seeing deal with hard truths, especially when that traumatic, is a hard thing to do. Trust me, I've been there. But the reality is... there is no order, no all encompassing evil. There is just randomicity, the miracle of human compassion and the vicious human cruelty. Nothing less, nothing more. PittBird PittBird 1 day ago @Jesse Willey Perhaps it would help to say what you're talking about (instead of "objective reality")...Obviously reality is real, but exactly what are YOU talking about? PittBird PittBird 1 day ago (edited) @Jesse Willey Brain death is the definition of death, so how do you keep someone alive (who is already dead)? Organs do not function without a brain...You still haven't answered whether you understand hyperventilation- induced cerebral hypoxia? What you seem not to understand, is that these "brain dead" patients are perfectly fine (before they are intentionally hyperventilated). Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 23 hours ago @PittBird Things that can be proven with repeatable, observable and repeatable evidence. We can prove brain death occurs. Just put someone under an MRI and you can see it clear as day. To deny that, one is denying such an objective reality exists. Furthermore, you can look up the history of when ventilators came into more common use and states instigating laws regarding end of life issues. And they match up pretty closely. There is no evidence to support a conspiracy. In fact for it to be true, the objective reality would have to be ignored. All you have is an unfalsifiable claim. Such claims should be treated as false unless you present evidence otherwise. You are the the one who is making the claim. You're the one who has to prove there is a tea cup orbiting between Earth and Mars, not me. But your whole argument is... it's a conspiracy and if you had evidence, it wouldn't be a conspiracy. Circular reasoning. In other words, your whole argument is a tower of dung built inside of a flushing toilet. You got nothing. And as such, your opinions have no value other than as a living monument to the most powerful force on Earth. Human stupidity. PittBird PittBird 23 hours ago @Jesse Willey Who said anything about a conspiracy? Do you understand hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia? I am not interested in your flushing toilets and name-calling...Either you reference facts, or you run away from them...How about a little objective reality? Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 23 hours ago @PittBird Artificial life support. Such a person is living but only in a mechanical sense. They are breathing, they can take nutrients through a feeding tube and... as many people in the healthcare industry note... capable of reproduction. (Either because a wife wants a child and won't go with anyone other than their husband as the father. If they are next of kin they can legally ask for sperm to be collected.) Or as many care facilities find out, sexual assault of female patients. The brain is not required for something to be alive. To have personhood, yes. But being alive, no. Two completely different concepts. PittBird PittBird 23 hours ago @Jesse Willey "Things that can be proven with repeatable, observable and repeatable evidence".......You are repeating yourself. PittBird PittBird 23 hours ago @Jesse Willey Occam's razor requires that something be explained in the simplest of terms...So why would a breathing person (with a heartbeat) be considered brain dead (as in officially dead. per a cadaver), when it would be quite simpler to point out that the person is artificially being prevented from moving (and speaking)? PittBird PittBird 22 hours ago The purpose of the morphine overdose is to speed up the medical murder (after vital organ$ have already been cut out of the viable victim, and without anesthesia). Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 21 hours ago The purpose of the laws to allow this is to assuage and respect the patient's personal spiritual and religious beliefs. Which, while I don't agree with them... I do respect. Though I've let my close family and friends (and even those family members I'm not close to like my sister) that should something like that happen to me... let me go. Because if a person is kept alive by a machine, well, you're basically Robocop without the robot or the cop. Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 21 hours ago @PittBird The medical murder which you have yet to present indisputable evidence ever occurred. Give the names of the perps, trial dates, medical examiners reports, etc. to back up your claims. Documentation or it didn't happen. Otherwise, you get NOTHING. Good day, sir! PittBird PittBird 21 hours ago @Jesse Willey Any neurologist knows that if the brain actually dies, then the organs must be harvested IMMEDIATELY (to be transplanted)...There is no such thing as brain death (while on life support)...You still haven't told me whether you understand hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia? PittBird PittBird 20 hours ago @Jesse Willey Who is asking for anything? I am showing the methodology of medical terrorism (since 1963)...You, for some reason, take this as a challenge against you? I know for a fact that the state and federal governments work hand in hand (sponsoring this), and anyone else involved is just doing a job provided to them by the government (per mutual blackmail, since 1963). Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 14 hours ago No, you are making claims about it. Claims without evidence are nonsense. Show the evidence. whaddya got? Nothing. So as I said... there is no reason to listen to you. PittBird PittBird 9 hours ago @Jesse Willey I got actual science...The brain death you refer to is nothing more than a contrived low voltage on an EEG (for example), by intentional criminal forced hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia (which drastically reduces blood flow to the brain)...It is the job of a criminal anesthesiologist to ensure that this cerebral blood flow is low enough to immobilize the victim (without actually ever damaging the brain). PittBird PittBird 9 hours ago @Jesse Willey What law are you talking about? Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 6 hours ago @PittBird It varies from state to state. But almost every state requires you to assume someone would want to be on life support unless you have documentation saying otherwise. PittBird PittBird 6 hours ago @Jesse Willey And the reason is that almost all quality organ$ (for transplant) are retrieved from viable patients (who are intentionally made to appear brain dead, via the fraudulent use of a ventilator). Jesse Willey Highlighted reply Jesse Willey 1 hour ago @PittBird Again, show your evidence. Observable data or it didn't happen. PittBird PittBird 38 minutes ago (edited) @Jesse Willey Happens every day, in every "Critical Care" unit in America...Doesn't matter who shows what...America's owners own the courts (through the 93 US Attorneys, State Attorneys General, and District Attorneys, or equivalents). Highlighted reply Jesse Willey 57 minutes ago @PittBird Only what you're talking about doesn't happen. There is no conspiracy. People die, even people who seem healthy. That doesn't mean there is some massive cabal behind it. It just means shit happens. When you're traumatized it's natural to want to the externalize the cause of your grief. Turn it into something you can fight or rally against, because that's something people can grasp and deal with. But that's not how the world works. The truth is... horrible things happen. You can't control them. You can't fight. There isn't anything you can do it about. You aren't honoring your wife by continuing this nonsense and it is clear it is causing you some serious harm. Now, none of the people I've ever been in love with ever really gave a shit about me. But I'd like to think if someone ever had... our places were reversed, I'd like to think that'd be the last thing they'd want me to do. Get yourself some help man... because you are serious need of a mental health exam. PittBird PittBird 1 second ago @Jesse Willey Telling the truth does not necessitate the need for a mental health exam...Actually telling the truth has always been quite relaxing for me...Once again, you continue to avoid the question as to whether you understand criminal intentional hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia (per medical kidnap of healthy people, via musculature shutdown, to harvest their healthy organ$)??? PittBird 8 hours ago @Jesse Willey Once again, do you understand hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia? Your continued avoidance of this question, shows me you have no interest in facts, in deference to psychological jargon . Jesse Willey Jesse Willey 8 hours ago (edited) @PittBird Because I answered already. I understand what you're saying. I'm saying there is no cabal. No conspiracy. No elites who steal organs either for transplant or an afternoon snack. I'm saying that you're so full of shit that if you take even half a bite than you'll explode like Mr. Creosote. PittBird PittBird 8 hours ago @Jesse Willey You never answered the question...What is hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia? Just answer the question, or I'll continue to ask it (until you are forced to delete your entire commenting). PittBird PittBird 8 hours ago @Jesse Willey I am not here to talk about cancer...I am here to talk about medical terrorism (via contrived "brain death"), since 1963. Jesse Willey Highlighted reply Jesse Willey 7 hours ago @PittBird Yes, I did. It's when you start exhaling more oxygen than you take in and your brains and organs shut down. There are so many possible causes for that, and most of them can happen to other wise healthy person. It doesn't require a massive conspiracy. Or murder. All it requires wrong place, wrong time. Of course, that's true of almost everything in life. PittBird PittBird 1 second ago @Jesse Willey Actually hyperventilation is the opposite of what you just said. PittBird 22 seconds ago (edited) So here's a guy who just spent days disparaging my remarks (when he doesn't even understand my remarks)... PittBird 8 hours ago @Jesse Willey You never answered the question...What is hyperventilation-induced cerebral hypoxia? Just answer the question, or I'll continue to ask it (until you are forced to delete your entire commenting). PittBird PittBird 8 hours ago @Jesse Willey I am not here to talk about cancer...I am here to talk about medical terrorism (via contrived "brain death"), since 1963. Jesse Willey Highlighted reply Jesse Willey 7 hours ago @PittBird Yes, I did. It's when you start exhaling more oxygen than you take in and your brains and organs shut down. There are so many possible causes for that, and most of them can happen to other wise healthy person. It doesn't require a massive conspiracy. Or murder. All it requires wrong place, wrong time. Of course, that's true of almost everything in life. HYPERVENTILATION is the OPPOSITE of what he states above. Robert W. Malone, MD, MS Madison, VA 22727 rwmalonemd@gmail.com (434) 979-0090 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE The original inventor of mRNA and DNA vaccination technologies (1989); including in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection. Dr. Malone is a specialist in clinical research, medical affairs, regulatory affairs, project management, proposal management (large grants and contracts), vaccines and biodefense. This includes writing, developing, reviewing and managing vaccine, bio-threat and biologics clinical trials and clinical development strategies. He has been involved in developing, designing, and providing oversight of approximately forty phase 1 clinical trials and twenty phase 2 clinical trials, as well as five phase 3 clinical trials. He has served as medical director/medical monitor on both phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials, including those run at a well-known vaccine-focused Clinical Contract Research Organizations. He has served as principal investigator on some of these. Examples of his infectious disease pathogen advanced (clinical phase) development oversight experience include HIV, Influenza (seasonal and pandemic), Plague, Anthrax, VEE/EEE/WEE, Tularemia, Tuberculosis, Ebola, Zika, Ricin toxin, Botulinum toxin, and Engineered pathogens. In many cases, this experience has included vaccine product development, manufacturing, regulatory compliance, and testing (manufacturing release and clinical) aspects. In most cases, his oversight responsibilities have included clinical trial design, regulatory and ethical compliance, and laboratory assay strategy, design, testing and performance. Dr. Malone has a history of assembling and managing expert teams that focus on solving complicated biodefense challenges to meet US Government requirements. He was instrumental in enabling the PHAC/rVSV ZEBOV (“Merck Ebola”) vaccine to move forward quickly towards BLA and (now recently granted) licensure. Dr. Malone got the project on track in support of DoD/DTRA and NewLink Genetics, recruited organizations to team with USAMRIID/WRAIR to develop the immunoassays, put WHO and Norwegian government philanthropic leadership in touch with Pentagon leadership to expedite the initial WRAIR clinical and ring vaccination trials, recruited a management team, recruited Merck vaccines to purchase the product candidate from NewLink, helped write and edit the clinical trials developed by the World Health Organization and lead the development of the BARDA and DTRA contracts - yielding over 200M$ in resources. Dr. Malone’s early involvement in this project allowed for the Merck vaccine to be developed very rapidly. Currently, Dr. Malone is leading a large team since January 10, 2020, focused on clinical research design, drug development, computer modeling and mechanisms of action of repurposed drugs for COVID-19 treatment. This work has included multiple manuscripts summarizing most recent findings relating to famotidine and overall insights into the mechanism of COVID-19 disease, and others focused on celecoxib and famotidine are being reviewed for publication. He has developed and wrote the initial clinical trial design: A Single Center, Randomized, Double Blinded Controlled Crossover Observational Outpatient Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Oral Famotidine for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Non-Hospitalized Symptomatic Adults. Another project he has been involved with is a DTRA/DOMANE-funded development and performance of a virtual outpatient clinical trial designed to test new monitoring and data capture technology while using COVID19 as a live-fire example. He has helped open two IND for famotidine and celecoxib use for treatment and prevention of COVID19 disease including an associated Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 2 drug master file, and has enabled teaming/pharmaceutical supply arrangements with two major pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Malone is an internationally recognized scientist and is the original inventor of mRNA Vaccination, DNA Vaccination, and multiple non-viral DNA and RNA/mRNA delivery technologies. Dr. Malone holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines: including DNA and RNA/mRNA vaccines. His expertise includes virology, immunology, molecular biology, pathology and pharmacology. Scientifically trained at UC Davis, UC San Diego, and at the Salk Institute Molecular Biology and Virology laboratories, Dr. Malone received his medical training at Northwestern University (MD) and Harvard University (Clinical Research Post Graduate Fellowship) medical schools, and in Pathology at UC Davis. He has extensive research and development experience (bench to bedside) in the areas of pre-clinical discovery research, clinical trials, vaccines, gene therapy, bio-defense, repurposing drugs for infectious diseases, high throughput screening and immunology. He has over twenty years of management and leadership experience in academia, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as in governmental and non-governmental organizations. He often serves as study section chairperson for NIAID contract study sections relating to biodefense medical product development. He is currently a topic editor for the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology, in the area of “Treating COVID-19 With Currently Available Drugs.” Dr. Malone has approximately 100 peer-reviewed publications and published abstracts and has about 12,000 citations of his peer reviewed publications and patents, as verified by Google Scholar. His google scholar ranking is “outstanding” for impact factors. He has been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, has chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on or served as chairperson on numerous NIAID and DoD study sections. Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 3 SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS / SKILLS • Inventor of mRNA and DNA vaccination. • Inventor of lipid mediated and naked mRNA delivery (transfection). • Inventor of in-vivo electroporation (particularly for skin delivery). • A senior executive and scientist with a highly successful track record of leading bench and discovery research through FDA Phase I, II, and III clinical trials, protocol development and submission, and related regulatory submissions including pIND and IND. • Significant expertise in drug development and delivery. • Specialist in Medical Affairs. • Special in Regulatory Affairs. • Domestically trained, Maryland Licensed Physician/Scientist. • Experienced capturing and managing large federal contracts (including BARDA) with over 9 billion in ID/IQ awards and almost a billion USD in government contracts won and/or managed in the last decade. • Expertise in pathology, infectious disease, pandemic clinical trials, influenza, regulatory affairs, project management, biodefense, HIV and Ebola. A verified list of capture is available upon request. • Significant expertise with federal contracting, grants, international NGO health related research and development coupled with professional relationships at CDC, DoD, HHS (BARDA, CDC, FDA and NIAID). • Prior and current service on many federal study sections and oversight boards involving infectious disease, vaccine, and biodefense. • Experienced and formally trained as a Business Development Professional, project manager, capture/proposal manager, color team reviewer and editor for projects valued from 10M$ up to 1B$ US, with experience managing processes and teams in a wide variety of non-profit and for-profit corporate cultures including both matrix and traditional environments. • Highly skilled in fostering a culture of innovative problem solving within project teams. • DoD Secret Clearance authorized. • Expert witness experience, with extensive training from some of the top attorneys/law firms in the USA. • Rated outstanding for impact factors, by Google scholar. • Graduated from the Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training Program with distinction, a year-long program focused on international clinical research. This program combines onsite (London & Boston) as well as distance learning, with an average of 15h per week lecture and practicum exercises. Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 4 RW Malone MD, LLC CEO and Principal Consultant: 2001-Present Dr. Malone has been involved in developing, designing, and providing oversight of approximately forty phase-1 clinical trials and twenty phase-2 clinical trials, as well as five phase 3 clinical trials. He has served as medical director/medical monitor on approximately forty phase-1 clinical trials, and on twenty phase-2 clinical trials, including those run at vaccine-focused Clinical Research Organizations. He has served as principal investigator on some of these. Providing business development, proposal management, clinical trials development, expert witness, regulatory and medical affairs support for pharmaceutical, vaccinesrelated and biologics companies as well as related regulatory submissions including pIND and IND. Projects include: • Led a large team since January 10, 2020, focused on drug development, computer modeling and mechanisms of action for COVID-19 and is now preparing a manuscript summarizing most recent findings relating to famotidine and overall insights into the mechanism of COVID-19 disease. • Accelerated COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines: ACTIV Therapeutics Clinical Working Group, NIH. Invited Participant. June, 2020-present. • Clinical trials protocol development: Developed and wrote initial clinical trial design: A Single Center, Randomized, Double Blinded Controlled Crossover Observational Outpatient Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Oral Famotidine for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Non-Hospitalized Symptomatic Adults. • Proposed is a DOMANE/WRAIR joint development and performance of outpatient clinical trial designed to test new monitoring and data capture technology while using COVID19 as a live-fire example. • Opening IND for famotidine use for treatment and prevention of COVID19 disease with associated drug master file. • Principal Regulatory Consultant, Clinical Network Services (CNS)/Novotech, 2018-2019. Regulatory, clinical and business development support. • Served as an expert witness with specialized training, 2017 - present. • Ebola vaccine project for NewLink/Bioprotection Systems (rVSVdG ZEBOV Ebola vaccine project), resulting in well over 100M USD non-dilutive capital to NL/BPS. This also included working with the World Health Organization as well as initial set up of the licensing deal to Merck Vaccines of the Ebola vaccine. • Served as Medical Director, Beardsworth, half time position on retainer, 2010 – 2013. • Service on federal biotechnology/vaccines proposal study sections (multiple). • Served as Editor-In-Chief of Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines 2007-2012 • Service on Safety Monitoring Committee, Phase 1 safety/immunogenicity of novel Influenza vaccine • Consulting support for multiple vaccine-focused clinical sites in US and Latin America. • Served as Medical Director, Vaccines with Accelovance, Inc. (2008 – 2009). • Served as medical monitor for multiple seasonal and pandemic (H1N1) studies. • Review and edit clinical protocols. Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 5 • Examples of multi-year contract clients include Accelovance, Alchem Laboratories, Avancer, Beardsworth, Chesapeake Perl, Corium, DOAR, ITS, ITT-Exelis, EpiVax, Jean Brown Research, Opgen, Quest Diagnostics (Focus), PaxVax, SAI, Soligenix, TASC, Univ of MA. • Commercial intelligence work for two of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world (subcontractor). • Partnering with Galloway and Associates (Darrell Galloway) 2012-2014. • Acting as Managing Director, Clinical Development and Government Affairs for the Avancer Group. April 2012 – 2016. • Proposal development (patch-based vaccine delivery, Tularemia vaccine, CDC contract for clinical trials site development, international government and NGO contract and grant solicitations) – Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation 2003-2005. • Proposal development (plague vaccine- HHS), Technical diligence – VaxGen Corporation. • Consulting services for EpiVax, 2005-2018 (member, Scientific Advisory Board), 2020. • Consulting services for Aldevron, LLC. 2001-2005 (operating as Gene Delivery Alliance). • Business and proposal development in the areas of Bioinformatics and Life Sciences (including telemedicine) and research at the University of Bern, Switzerland. • Consulting services for Molecular Histology, Inc. with the title of Medical Director. • Collaboration with Inovio, including incorporation of company in the USA. • Consulting services for MSD, Inc. for business/ technology development planning. Alchem Laboratories Chief Medical Officer This position was as a consultant, but then full time FTE. Consulting for Alchem and/or its CEO: 2012 – 2019. CMO 11/2019 to 4/2020. • Led a high through-put screening and research team for drug development 2019-2020. • Dr. Malone began modeling and focusing on the Plpro (papain-like protease) and Mpro (main protease) of then novel coronavirus (now SARS-CoV-2) using computational tools including Modeller to generate homology-modeled crystal structures for the SARS-CoV-2 Plpro and Mpro. Which generated a candidate list for COVID-19, which was reduced to a few candidates, based on binding sites, safety, licensure, efficacy, bioavailability of drug candidates. • Lead the discovery and development of famotidine for the Treatment of COVID-19. • Technical Lead/writer for funded full proposal under BAA-18-100-SOL-00003 Amendment 15 entitled: “A Multi-site, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multi-Arm Historical Control, Comparative Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine, and the Combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Famotidine for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Hospitalized Adults.” • Developed and wrote initial clinical trial design for a comparative trial of the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, and the combination of hydroxychloroquine and famotidine for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized adults. Atheric Pharmaceutical, LLC CEO, and Co-founder. Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 6 Feb 2016-Dec 2017. Atheric™ Pharmaceutical LLC was a biopharmaceutical company focused on the rapid development and commercialization of re-purposed drugs to prevent and treat Zika and other Flavivirus disease. Optimization of high through-put screening techniques for anti-viral drug development. Kennesaw State University Adjunct Associate Professor 2009-2013 Beardsworth Consulting Group, Inc Medical Director, Vaccines (RW Malone MD, LLC under contract to Beardsworth) 2010-2013 Dr. Malone functioned as the in-house medical vaccine expert for medical monitoring and Scientific Liaison • Medical liaison to investigator sites including oversight of clinical monitoring • Provided medical monitoring input including CRF review, 24x7 accessibility to site personnel, assess enrollment waiver requests, SAE review, etc. • Safety Officer and Medical Representative on project teams • Medical consultant to clients • Business development/proposal writing/government contracting Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc (currently Abbvie) Director, Clinical Development & Medical Affairs, Influenza 2006-2008 Led an extended clinical team (both internal and CRO components), providing project and clinical trials management oversight, serving as primary author on clinical protocols, strategic documents including clinical development plans, DSMB/SMC charters, and all clinical documents required to support IND filing. Support and review of outcomes including safety data assessment Generated and managed cost projections and budgetary oversight, providing strategic management and serving as a communication hub for clinical aspects of a $300 million USD federal contract to develop and license a cell-based influenza vaccine Solvay’s US Government contract for cell-based influenza vaccine was terminated around the end of 2007. At which point the cell-based influenza vaccine project was dissolved. Summit Drug Development Services Senior Medical Director 2005-2006 Directed due diligence assessments and strategic drug development planning and prepared regulatory submissions and implemented, monitored, and analyzed clinical trials for clients (oncology, vaccines, biologicals, cell/stem cell therapies). Primary author of three pIND, two IND, an Appendix M submission. Served as proposal manager and primary author for a 129M USD federal contract submission focused on pandemic influenza. AERAS Global TB Vaccine Foundation Director, Business Development and Program Management 2004-2005 Initially serving as consultant, provided leadership primarily focused on tuberculosis vaccine development and proposal development to NGO (B&M Gates), USG (CDC, NIH, DoD). Dynport Vaccine Company, LLC Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 7 Associate Director, Clinical Research 2002-2003 • Served as liaison between product development teams and clinical research support groups. • Prepared planning documents and product development plans. • Participated in and supported safety review and assessment of smallpox vaccine product. • Identified new technologies relevant to product development teams, facilitating integration of same in product development plans. • Created documents for clinical trials including investigator brochures. Prepared proposal solicitations, technical review of subcontractor proposals. Performed technical review of potential subcontractors, new technologies. • Assisted business development group in strategic evaluation and planning concerning new business opportunities and managed in-house Publication. Intradigm, Corp Co-Founder (one of three co-founders), CSO, Board of Director Member 2000-2001 Intradigm was a biotechnology company that develops gene therapeutic technology based on RNA interference. Intradigm merged with Silence Technologies in 2009 and the merged company is now publicly traded. Silence Technologies is involved in developmental research of targeted RNAi therapeutics for the treatment of serious diseases. Dr. Malone co-founded and helped to secure $2.3 million in V.C. funding, including monies from the Novartis Venture Fund, ETP Venture Capital Fund and the State of Maryland. Performed facilities set-up, infrastructure set-up and Intellectual Property Development. Business and technology development planning, including in-depth business and scientific plan. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Dept of Surgery, Clinical Breast Care Program (CBCP) through the Henry M. Jackson Foundation Adjunct Associate Professor Chief of Laboratory Science and Director of Tissue Banking 2000-2001 • Worked closely with architect firm to design space, set-up laboratory facilities for the Clinical Breast Care Project, including new facilities design (tissue banking facilities, laboratory, animal rooms, animal surgical suite, office suites) at USUHS and Windber Medical Center, PA • Hired faculty, technicians, staff for CBCP at both sites, including writing and initiating job descriptions, job interviews, hiring decisions, set-up for re-locations • Laboratory Supervisor: Tissue banking immunology, cell culture, gene transfer, genetic vaccination research, animal research. University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Medicine, Dept. of Pathology Assistant Professor 1997-2000 Set-up and ran successful research laboratory in immunology (genetic vaccination) and gene transfer. University of California, Davis Department of Medical Pathology 1991-1997 Assistant Professor 1993-1997 Director and Founder, Gene Therapy Program (pulmonary, dermal, heart, liver, mucosal and parenteral vaccines). Research Fellow, Pathology Resident 1991-1993 Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 8 Vical, Inc Research Scientist 1989 • Set up Vical’s molecular biology laboratory. • Initiated and carried out research in non-viral gene therapy and DNA vaccination. • Inventor of “naked DNA” gene therapy. (see issued patents for details). • Inventor of DNA vaccination (see issued patents for details). • Inventor of “mRNA” gene therapy. Salk institute. • Inventor of mRNA vaccination. Salk institute. • Inventor of “mRNA as a drug” or “transient gene therapy”, terms both coined by Dr. Malone. Salk Institute. LICENSURE / CERTIFICATIONS Physician and Surgeon, State of Maryland License 1997-present. #DOO55466 BOARD OF DIRECTOR POSITIONS: Discovery Cure, Inc. Founding Board of Director. 2018-2020 Epivax, Scientific Advisory Board, 2012-2019. EDUCATION • HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL Global Clinical Scholars Research Training Program (fellowship) A year-long comprehensive program that combines on-site (London, Boston) and distance learning, with an average of 15h per week lecture and practicum exercises. 2015-2016. Graduation with distinction (top 5% of graduating class). • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS: RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP, 1992 – 1993 Postgraduate Fellowship Award • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER: 1992 Clinical Pathology Internship • NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL: 1991 Doctor of Medicine • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO: 1988 Master of Science, Biology • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS: 1984 Bachelor of Science, Biochemistry Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 9 TEACHING EXPERIENCE Kennesaw State University Associate Professor: BTEC 4490 Experimental Design and Analysis (2009): Survey course focused on advanced product development and regulatory aspects of biotechnology and vaccines products. University of Maryland, Medical School Assistant Professor: Fundamentals of Molecular Biology (Graduate Course, Winter 2000) Host defenses and Infectious Diseases, small group instructor Year 2 Medical School core curriculum. 1998, 1999 University of California, Davis Assistant Professor: MD 410A/410B. General Systemic Pathology (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996) PTX 202. Principles of Pharmacology and Toxicology-Lecturer (1995, 1996) BCM 214-414. Molecular Medicine-Lecturer (1995, 1996) IM 295 Cytokines-Lecturer (1996), IDI 280. Molecular Basis of Disease-Lecturer (1996) University of California, San Diego Biology 111. Cell Biology (Fall 1988). Teaching Assistant under Dr. M. Montal Biology 123. Embryology laboratory (Spring 1988). Teaching Assistant under Dr. C.Holt Santa Barbara City College Computer Laboratory (Spring 1981) Teaching Assistant PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND MEMBERSHIPS • Royal Society of Medicine, Fellow 2021-Present. • Harvard Medical School Alumni, 2016- present. • American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Member (ASTMH): 2016-2018. • Virginia Bio: 2016-2018 • IEEE Genomics and Bioinformatics Working Group Member: 2002 • Northern Virginia Technology Council BioMedTech Committee: Co-chair: 2002 – 2003 • Intradigm, Corp. – a new start-up from Novartis, Inc.: Scientific Advisory Board: 2000 – 2001 • Novartis, Inc. (GTI/Systemix & Pharmacokinetics): Scientific Advisory Board and External Portfolio Reviewer: 1999 – 2001 • University of Maryland, Medical School: Pathology Education Policy Committee: 1999 – 2000 • UC Davis: • Education Policy Committee Graduate Group in Comparative Pathology: 1996 – 1/1997 • Member, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Graduate Group: 1993 – 1/1997 • Member, Comparative Pathology Graduate Group: 1995 – 1/1997 • Boehringer Mannheim: Scientific Advisory Board: 1992 – 1993 Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 10 EDITORIAL BOARDS • Topic Editor, Frontiers in Pharmacology (Respiratory Pharmacology): “Treating COVID-19 with Currently Available Drugs,” 2020-2021. • Editor-In-Chief, Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines. 2009 – 2012, Editor: 2012. • Gene Therapy/Molecular Biology International Society. 1997 – 2014. • Reviewer for: Numerous peer-reviewed journals on infectious disease, public health 2016 to present. • Nucleic Acids Research: 2001 – 2002. • Molecular Therapy: 1999 – 2001. ACADEMIC HONORS • Harvard Medical School, Global Clinical Scholar Post Graduate: graduation with distinction (top 5% of graduating class). • “DNA Vaccine” Recognizes Robert W. Malone, MD, MS, 2013. • Trainee Investigator Award, American Federation for Clinical Research: 1993. • Bank of America – Giannini Foundation Medical Research Fellow: 1992 – 1993. • Henry Christian Award for Excellence in Research, American Federation for Clinical Research: 1992. • UCDMC Medical Scholars Grant: 1992 – 1993. • DNA and RNA Transfection and Vaccination (Abstract). First Place, Northwestern AOA Research Symposium Competition for Medical Students: 1989. • USPHS Pre-Doctoral Fellowship: 1986 – 1988. • San Diego Supercomputer Grant for RNA Structure Modeling: 1988. • Northwestern University MD/ PhD Scholarship: 1984 – 1986. • Dean's List, UC Davis: 1982 – 1984. • President's Undergraduate Fellowship Grant for Investigation of Oncogene Expression in Breast Tumor Tissue: 1983 – 1984. • Edmonson Summer Fellowship, Department of Pathology, UC Davis Medical School: 1984. PATENTS ISSUED: 1. Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to deliver a biologically active peptide and to induce a cellular immune response. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. No. 7,250,404, date of issue: 7/31/07. Priority date 3/21/1989. Cited in 105 articles. 2. Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to reduce likelihood of subject's becoming infected. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,867,195 B1, date of issue: 3/15/05. Priority date 3/21/1989. 3. Generation of an immune response to a pathogen. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,710,035, date of issue: 3/23/04. Priority date 3/21/1989. Citations: 37 articles. 4. Expression of exogenous polynucleotide sequences in a vertebrate, mammal, fish, bird or human Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,673,776, date of issue: 1/6/04. Priority date 3/21/1989. Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 11 5. Methods of delivering a physiologically active polypeptide to a mammal. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6.413.942, date of issue: 7/2/02. Priority date 3/21/1989. (cited in 150 articles). 6. Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,214,804, date of issue: 4/10/01. Priority date 3/21/1989. Cited in 359 articles. 7. DNA vaccines for eliciting a mucosal immune response (includes mRNA). US Pat. Ser. No. 6,110,898, date of issue: 8/29/00. Priority date 1996. Cited in 40 articles. 8. Formulations and methods for generating active cytofectin: polynucleotide transfection complexes. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,925,623 7/20/99. 9. Cationic Transport Reagents. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,892,071 issued 4/06/99. 10. Polyfunctional cationic cytofectins, formulations and methods for generating active cytofectin: polynucleotide transfection complexes. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,824,812 issued 10/20/98. 11. Cationic Transport Reagents. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,744,625 issued 4/28/98. 12. Generation of antibodies through lipid mediated DNA delivery. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,703,055, date of issue: 12/30/97. Priority date 3/21/1989. Cited in 463 articles. 13. Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,589,466, date of issue: 12/31/96. Priority date 3/21/1989. Cited in 889 articles. 14. Delivery of exogenous DNA sequences in a mammal (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,580,859, date of issue: 12/3/96. Priority date 3/21/1989. Cited in 1234 articles. 15. Cationic Transport Reagents. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,527,928, date of issue: 6/18/96. Of note: Cationic Lipid-Mediated RNA and DNA Transfection (“RNA as a Drug). 1988 patent application, Salk institute assignee, patent abandoned without inventor permission or knowledge. Inventor: Robert Malone. Available upon request. PUBLICATIONS (selected) Famotidine and Celecoxib COVID-19 Treatment Without and With Dexamethasone; Retrospective Comparison of Sequential Continuous Cohorts, Submitted to Nature, Scientific Reports, May 2021. Robert W Malone, Kevin M Tomera, Leo Egbujiobi, Joseph K Kittah Preprint at Research Square https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-526394/v1 More Than Just Heartburn: Does Famotidine Effectively Treat Patients with COVID-19? Malone RW. Dig Dis Sci. 2021 Feb 24:1–2. doi: 10.1007/s10620-021-06875-w. PMID: 33625612; PMCID: PMC7903029. COVID-19: Famotidine, Histamine, Mast Cells, and Mechanisms. Malone RW, et. al. Frontiers in Pharmacololgy, 23 March 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.633680 Cited in 32 articles. COVID-19: Famotidine, Histamine, Mast Cells, and Mechanisms. Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 12 Malone RW, et al DO.Res Sq. 2020 Jun 22:rs.3.rs-30934. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-30934/v2. Preprint.PMID: 32702719 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-30934/v2 Cited in 26 articles. Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Treated With Celecoxib and High Dose Famotidine Adjuvant Therapy Show Significant Clinical Responses (July 8, 2020). Tomera, K, Malone, R and kittah, J. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3646583 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3646583 Cited in 8 articles. Medical Countermeasures Analysis of 2019-nCoV and Vaccine Risks for Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE). Ricke, D.O.; Malone, R.W. Preprints 2020, 2020030138 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202003.0138.v1). May, 2020 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3646583 Molecular evolution of Zika virus as it crossed the Pacific to the Americas. Schneider AB, Malone RW, et al. Cladistics. 2017; 12: 10.1111/cla.12178 Zika Virus: Medical Countermeasure Development Challenges. Malone RW, et al. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(3):e0004530. Cited in 70 articles, viewed over 54,000 times, full PDF downloaded over 11,000 times. Zika Fetal Neuropathogenesis: Etiology of a Viral Syndrome. Klase ZA, Khakhina S, Schneider Ade B, Callahan MV, Glasspool-Malone J, Malone R. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(8):e0004877. Cited in 51 articles, viewed over 13,000 times. Antibody mediated epitope mimicry in the pathogenesis of Zika virus related disease. Homan J, Malone RW, et al. BioRxiv. 2016. Making vaccines "on demand": a potential solution for emerging pathogens and biodefense? De Groot AS, Einck L, Moise L, Chambers M, Ballantyne J, Malone RW Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013;9(9):1877-84. Electroporation enhances transfection efficiency in murine cutaneous wounds. Byrnes CK, Malone RW, et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12(4):397-403. DNA transfection of macaque and murine respiratory tissue is greatly enhanced by use of a nuclease inhibitor. Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. J Gene Med. 2002;4(3):323-2. Marked enhancement of macaque respiratory tissue transfection by aurintricarboxylic acid. GlasspoolMalone J, …, Malone RW. Gene Med. 2002;4(3):323-2. Enhancing direct in vivo transfection with nuclease inhibitors and pulsed electrical fields. GlasspoolMalone J, Malone RW. In Gene Therapy Methods: Methods Enzymol. 2002;346:72-91 Cutaneous transfection and immune responses to intradermal nucleic acid vaccination are significantly enhanced by in vivo electropermeabilization. Drabick JJ, Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. Mol Ther. 2001;3(2):249-55. Cited in 192 articles. Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 13 Theory and in vivo application of electroporative gene delivery. Somiari S, Glasspool-Malone J, … Malone RW. Mol Ther. 2000;2(3):178-87. Cited in 345 articles. Nucleic acid vaccination with a single SIV can protect rhesus macaques from oral challenge with pathogenic SIVMAC239. Gary Rhodes, … Robert Malone, et al. Journal of Medical Primatology 29.3-4 (2000). Efficient nonviral cutaneous transfection. Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. Mol Ther. 2000;2(2):140- 6. Cited in 138 articles. Transfer and expression of foreign genes in mammalian cells. Colosimo A, …, Malone RW, et al. Biotechniques. 2000;29(2):314-8, 20-2, 24 passim. Cited in 188 articles. Specific inhibition of macrophage TNF-alpha expression by in vivo ribozyme treatment. Kisich KO, Malone RW, …, Erickson KL. J Immunol. 1999;163(4):2008-16. Cited in 131 Articles. Marked enhancement of direct respiratory tissue transfection by aurintricarboxylic acid. Glasspool-Malone J, Malone RW. Hum Gene Ther. 1999;10(10):1703-13 Developing dendritic cell polynucleotide vaccination for prostate cancer immunotherapy. Berlyn KA, …, Malone RW J Biotechnol. 1999;73(2-3):155-79 Models of Cationic Liposome Mediated Transfection. Gene Therapy and Molecular Biology. Ahearn A, Malone RW. Vol 4. Gene Therapy and Molecular Biology 1999;4 Feline dendritic-like cells: Isolation, culture, and genetic modification using monocytic precursors. Malone, J. G., Watts, T. L., Hale, A., & Malone, R. W. (1998, January). In JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY (pp. 63-63): FEDERATION AMER SOC EXP BIOL. Mucosal immune responses associated with polynucleotide vaccination. Malone JG, …, Malone RW. Behring Inst Mitt. 1997(98):63-72 Delivery of exogenous DNA sequences in a mammal. P Felgner, …, R Malone, D Carson. Biotechnology Advances. 1997 15 (3-4), 763-763 Cationic lipid-mediated gene delivery to murine lung: correlation of lipid hydration with in vivo transfection activity. Bennett MJ, …, Malone RW, Nantz MH. J Med Chem. 1997;40(25):4069-78 Improved method for the removal of endotoxin from DNA. Montbriand PM, Malone RW. J Biotechnol. 1996;44(1-3):43-6. Cited in: 43 articles Toxicity of cationic lipid-ribozyme complexes in human prostate tumor cells can mimic ribozyme activity.Freedland SJ, Malone RW, et al. Biochem Mol Med. 1996;59(2):144-53 Considerations for the design of improved cationic amphiphile-based transfection reagents. Bennett MJ, …, Malone RW. Journal of Liposome Research 1996;6(3):545-65 Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 14 Escherichia coli beta-glucuronidase and Photinus pyralis luciferase reporter. Ayar, S. F., & Malone, R. W. (1996, November). In CLINICAL CHEMISTRY (Vol. 42, No. 11, pp. 35-35). Structural and functional analysis of cationic transfection lipids: the hydrophobic domain. Balasubramaniam RP, …, Malone RW. Gene Ther. 1996;3(2):163-72. Cited in 172 articles. The counterion influence on cationic lipid-mediated transfection of plasmid DNA.Aberle AM, Bennett MJ, Malone RW, Nantz MH. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1996;1299(3):281-3 Direct gene tranfer into mouse muscle in vivo. N Shafee, ..., RW Malone, et al. International Journal of Virology 2 (1), 33-38 A flexible approach to synthetic lipid ammonium salts for polynucleotide transfection. MJ Bennett, RW Malone, MH Nantz. Tetrahedron letters 36 (13), 2207-2210 Tfx-50 Reagent, a new transfection reagent for eukaryotic cells. Schenborn E, …, Malone RW, et al. 1995 Hepatic gene expression after direct DNA injection. Hickman MA, Malone RW, et al. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 1995;17(3):265-71 Ribozyme and messenger-RNA delivery using cationic liposomes RW MALONE 1995/1/5 Conference JOURNAL OF CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY Pages 206 Publisher WILEY-LISS Cholesterol enhances cationic liposome-mediated DNA transfection of human respiratory epithelial cells. Bennett MJ, …, Malone RW. Biosci Rep. 1995;15(1):47-53 Dexamethasone enhancement of gene expression after direct hepatic DNA injection. Malone RW, et al. J Biol Chem. 1994;269(47):29903-7 Gene expression following direct injection of DNA into liver. Hickman MA, Malone RW, et al. Hum Gene Ther. 1994;5(12):1477-83. Cited in 306 articles. Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection. Dwarki VJ, Malone RW, Verma IM. Methods Enzymol. 1993;217:644-54. Cited in 88 articles. Successful gene transfection of respiratory epithelium invitro using polyamine containing cationic lipids. CB Robinson, RW Malone, J Jessee, G Gebeyehu, R Wu AMERICAN REVIEW OF RESPIRATORY DISEASE 147 (4), A546-A546 Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Wolff JA, Malone RW, et al. Science. 1990;247(4949 Pt 1):1465-8. Cited in 4,695 articles. Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection. Malone RW, Felgner PL, Verma IM. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989;86(16):6077-81. Cited in 717 articles. Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 15 mRNA Transfection of cultured eukaryotic cells and embryos using cationic liposomes. Malone RW. Focus. 1989;11:61-8 High levels of messenger RNA expression following cationic liposome mediated transfection tissue culture cells. Malone R, Kumar R, Felgner P. NIH Conference: “Self-Cleaving RNA as an Anti-HIV Agent” (Abstract). Washington, DC June 1989. A novel approach to study packaging of retroviral RNA by RNA transfection (Abstract). RW Malone, P. Felgner, I. Verma. RNA Tumor Viruses, May 17-18, 1988. Cold Spring Harbor Mammary tumors in feral mice lacking MuMTV DNA. Gardner MB, Malone RW, …, Cardiff RD, et al. J Exp Pathol. 1985;2(2):93-8 Hyperplastic and neoplastic changes in the mammary glands of feral mice free of endogenous mouse mammary tumor virus provirus. Faulkin LJ, …, Malone RW, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1984;73(4):971-82. PUBLISHED ABSTRACTS: Over 50 published CHAIRPERSON/ORAL PRESENTATIONS BY INVITATION: Over 40 Invitations (Only the most recent events listed) • Vaccines R&D, 2019. Keynote Speaker, Panel Moderator: Boston, MA. 18-20 November, 2019. • Repurposing drugs for Infectious Disease Outbreaks. International Conference on Zika Virus. Washington, DC Feb 22-25, 2017 (Chairperson) • Accelerated Discovery and Development of re-purposed licensed drugs for Zika virus outbreak antiviral prophylaxis and therapy. International Conference on Zika Virus. Washington, DC Feb 22- 25, 2017. (Oral Presentation) • Zika Virus: Accelerating Development of Medical Countermeasures by Re-purposing Licensed Drugs. Bridging the Sciences: Zika Virus. Emery, Atlanta, GA 1-3 May, 2016. (Oral Presentation) • Speaker/Round table- Zika virus: Challenges for Medical Countermeasure Development. World Vaccine Conference. Washington, DC. 29-31 March, 2016. • The World Health Organization (WHO) Consultation for Zika Virus: Research and Development. Presentation of Drug Development TPP. Geneva, Switzerland. 12-14 March, 2016. (Oral Presentation) • Keynote Speaker: Ebola Vaccine in 12 months, Global Village, and the Need for Speed. Vaccines R&D, Baltimore, MD. 2-4 November, 2015. (Keynote Speaker) Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 16 • Current USG contracting Opportunities and Initiatives from the point of View of Vaccine Developers. World Vaccine Conference, Washington, DC. 24-26 March, 2014. (Oral Presentation) • World Vaccine Conference, Washington, DC. 24-26 March, 2014 Preclinical and Clinical Vaccine Research. (Session Chair) • PHEMCE Modeling Workshop “Operational Decision Making using Innovative Modeling, Analysis, and Visualization Tools”, Sponsored by Deloitte. 2013 (Conference Co-Organizer and Coordinator/Oral Presentation) • "Vaccine Production Strategies: Ensuring Alignment and Sustainability" The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines. Geneva, Switzerland. 12-14 July 2011 (Oral Presentation) RECENT STUDY SECTIONS (selected): • Accelerated COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines: ACTIV Therapeutics Clinical Working Group, NIH. Invited Participant. June, 2020-present. • Chairperson, NIH/NIAID/DMID Special Emphasis Panel, Development of Vaccines to Combat Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria September 2019. • Chairperson, NIH/NIAID Special Emphasis Panel, December 2018. • Reviewer, NIH/NIAID Special Emphasis Panel, December 2017. • Chairperson and scientific reviewer for Department of Defense, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, for “Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (DMRDP), 2012. • Committee member and reviewer for NIH/NIAID Committee for Development of Technologies that Accelerate the Immune Response to BioDefense Vaccines. 2011 • Chair and reviewer for NIH/NIAID: Partnerships in Biodefense Immunotherapeutics. 2011 • NIH/NIAID Committee member and reviewer for Development of Technologies to Facilitate the Use of, and Response to Biodefense Vaccines,” Special Emphasis panel. 2010 • Chairperson and scientific reviewer for NIH/NIAID Omnibus BAA 2017-1: Research Area 5 (N01) ZAI1-KP- M-C6 (Topic 5: Advanced Development of Vaccine Candidates for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases), September 2017. • Scientific reviewer for NIH/NIAID Special Emphasis Panel/Scientific Review Group 2017/08 ZRG1 IMM-R (12) B (Non-HIV Microbial vaccines), June 2017. • Chairperson and scientific reviewer for Department of Defense, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, “CDMRP: Defense Medical Research & Development Program (DMRDP), 2012. • Chairperson and scientific reviewer for NIH/NIAID Committee on Partnerships in Biodefense Immunotherapeutics, Fall 2011. • Committee member and reviewer for NIH/ NIAID Committee for Development of Technologies that Accelerate the Immune Response to BioDefense Vaccines, Fall 2011. • NIH/ NIAID Committee member and reviewer for Development of Technologies to Facilitate the Use of, and Response to Biodefense Vaccines,” Special Emphasis panel, 2010. • NIH Study Section K01 Breast Cancer Study Section: July 1997 Robert W. Malone, MD, MS 17 • NIDDK Special Emphasis Panel Review Committee for Competing Continuation Program Project: April 1999 and April 1998 • NIAID Study Section “Innovative Grant Program for Approaches in HIV Vaccine Research”: 1998 BOOKS AND BOOK CHAPTERS • Malone RW. "Present and Future Status of Gene Therapy.' Intro Chapter in Advanced Gene Delivery: From Concepts to Pharmaceutical Products.” Editor: Allain Rolland. Harwood Academic Pub. 1998, republished 2014. • Enhancing direct in vivo transfection with nuclease inhibitors and pulsed electrical fields. GlasspoolMalone J, Malone RW. In Gene Therapy Methods: Methods Enzymol. 2002;346:72-91 • Malone RW. “Toxicology of non-viral gene transfer”. Editor, Walsh B. In: “Non-Viral Therapeutics: Advances, Challenges and Applications for Self-Assembling Systems.” IBC’s Biomedical Library Series. (1996) 4.1 *************************************************************** PINNED POST OTHER POSTS Skull & Bones - the NWO core group tepJuner d20, 201c9ed · The Millionaires' Unit – U.S. Naval Aviators in the First World War. The Millionaires' Unit is the story of a privileged group of college students from Yale who formed a private air militia in preparation for America's entry into World War One. The Millionaires Unit - US Aviators in WWI YOUTUBE.COM The Millionaires Unit - US Aviators in WWI The Museum presented a special screening of The Millionaires' Unit--U.S. Naval Aviators in the First World War, the story of a privileged group of college st... 3 Comments *************** 1. The rise and scope of neuroethics Neuroethics focuses on ethical issues raised by our continually improving understanding of the brain, and by consequent improvements in our ability to monitor and influence brain function. Significant attention to neuroethics can be traced to 2002, when the Dana Foundation organized a meeting of neuroscientists, ethicists, and other thinkers, entitled Neuroethics: Mapping the Field. A participant at that meeting, columnist and wordsmith William Safire, is often credited with introducing and establishing the meaning of the term “neuroethics”, defining it as ‘the examination of what is right and wrong, good and bad about the treatment of, perfection of, or unwelcome invasion of and worrisome manipulation of the human brain’ (Marcus, 2002, p.5). Others contend that the word “neuroethics” was in use prior to this (Illes, 2003; Racine, 2010), although all agree that these earlier uses did not employ it in a disciplinary sense, or to refer to the entirety of the ethical issues raised by neuroscience. Another attendee at that initial meeting, Adina Roskies, in response to a perceived lack of recognition of the potential novelty of neuroethics, penned “Neuroethics for the new millennium” (Roskies, 2002), an article in which she proposed a bipartite division of neuroethics into the “ethics of neuroscience”, which encompasses the kinds of ethical issues raised by Safire, and “the neuroscience of ethics”, thus suggesting an extension of the scope of neuroethics to encompass our burgeoning understanding of the biological basis of ethical thought and behavior and the ways in which this could itself influence and inform our ethical thinking. This broadening of the scope of neuroethics highlights the obvious and not-so-obvious ways that understanding our own moral thinking might affect our moral views; it is one aspect of neuroethics that distinguishes it from traditional bioethics. Another way of characterizing the field is as a study of ethical issues arising from what we can do to the brain (e.g. with neurotechnologies) and from what we know about it (including, for example, understanding the basis of ethical behavior). Although Roskies’ definition remains influential, it has been challenged in various ways. Some have argued that neuroethics should not be limited to the neuroscience of ethics, but rather be broadened to the cognitive science of ethics (Levy, personal communication), since so much work that enables us to understand the brain takes place in disciplines outside of neuroscience, strictly defined. This is in fact in the spirit of the original proposal, since it has been widely recognized that the brain sciences encompass a wide array of disciplines, methods, and questions. However, the most persistent criticisms have been from those who have questioned whether the neuroscience of ethics should be considered a part of neuroethics at all: they argue that understanding our ethical faculties is a scientific and not an ethical issue, and thus should not be part of neuroethics. This argument is usually followed by a denial that neuroethics is sufficiently distinct from traditional bioethics to warrant being called a discipline in its own right. The response to these critics is different: Whether or not these various branches of inquiry form a natural kind or are themselves a focus of ethical analysis is quite beside the point. Neuroethics is porous. One cannot successfully engage with many of the ethical issues without also understanding the science. In addition, academic or intellectual disciplines are at least in part (if not entirely) social constructs. And in this case the horse is out of the barn: It is clear that interesting and significant work is being pursued regarding the brain bases of ethical thought and behavior, and that this theoretical understanding has influenced, and has the potential to influence, our own thinking about ethics and our ethical practices. That neuroethics exists is undeniable: Neuroethical lines of research have borne interesting fruit over the last 10–15 years; neuroethics is now recognized as an area of study both nationally and internationally; neuroethics courses are taught at many universities; and training programs, professional societies, and research centers for neuroethics have already been established. The NIH BRAIN Initiative has devoted considerable resources to encouraging neuroscientific projects that incorporate neuroethical projects and analyses. Neuroethics is a discipline in its own right in part because we already structure our practices in ways that recognize it as such. What is most significant about neuroethics is not whether both the ethics of neuroscience and the neuroscience of ethics are given the same overarching disciplinary name, but that there are people working on both endeavors and that they are in dialogue (and sometimes, the very same people do both). Of course, to the extent that neuroethicists asks questions about disease, treatment, and so on, the questions will look familiar, and for answers they can and should look to extant work in traditional bioethics so as not to reinvent the wheel. But, ultimately, Farah is correct in saying that “New ethical issues are arising as neuroscience gives us unprecedented ways to understand the human mind and to predict, influence, and even control it. These issues lead us beyond the boundaries of bioethics into the philosophy of mind, psychology, theology, law and neuroscience itself. It is this larger set of issues that has…earned it a name of its own” (Farah 2010, p. 2). 2. The ethics of neuroscience Neuroethics is driven by neurotechnologies: it is concerned with the ethical questions that attend the development and effects of novel neurotechnologies, as well as other ethical and philosophical issues that arise from our growing understanding of how brains give rise to the people that we are and the social structures that we inhabit and create. These questions are intimately bound up with scientific questions about what kinds of knowledge can be acquired with particular techniques: what are the scope and limits of what a technique can tell us? With many new techniques, answers to these questions are obscure not only to the lay public, but often to the scientists themselves. The uncertainty about the reach of these technologies adds to the challenge of grappling with the ethical issues raised. Many new neurotechnologies enable us to monitor brain processes and increasingly, to understand how the brain gives rise to certain behaviors; others enable us to intervene in these processes, to change and perhaps to control behaviors, traits, or abilities. Although it will be impossible to fully canvass the range of questions neuroethics has thus far contemplated, discussion of the issues raised by a few neurotechnologies will allow me to illustrate the range of questions neuroethics entertains. The following is a not-exhaustive list of topics that fall under the general rubric of neuroethics. 2.1 The ethics of enhancement While medicine’s traditional goal of treating illness is pursued by the development of drugs and other treatments that counteract the detrimental effects of disease or insult, the same kinds of compounds and methods that are being developed to treat disease may also enhance normal cognitive functioning. We already possess the ability to improve some aspects of cognition above baseline, and will certainly develop other ways of doing so. Thus, a prominent topic in neuroethics is the ethics of neuroenhancement: What are the arguments for and against the use of neurotechnologies to enhance one’s brain’s capacities and functioning? Proponents of enhancement are sometimes called “transhumanists,” and opponents are identified as “bioconservatives”. These value-laden appellations may unnecessarily polarize a debate that need not pit extreme viewpoints against each other, and that offers many nuanced intermediate positions that recognize shared values (Parens, 2005) and make room for embracing the benefits of enhancement while recognizing the need for some type of regulation (e.g. Lin and Alhoff, 2008). The relevance of this debate itself depends to some extent upon a philosophical issue familiar to traditional bioethicists: the notorious difficulty of identifying the line between disease and normal function, and the corresponding difference between treatment and enhancement. However, despite the difficulty attending the principled drawing of this line, there are already clear instances in which a technology such as a drug is used with the aim of improving a capacity or behavior that is by no means clinically dysfunctional, or with the goal of improving a capacity beyond the range of normal functioning. One common example is the use, now widespread on college campuses and beyond, of methylphenidate, a stimulant typically prescribed for the treatment of ADHD. Known by the brand name Ritalin, methylphenidate has been shown to improve performance on working memory, episodic memory and inhibitory control tasks. Many students use it as a study aid, and the ethical standing of such off-label use is a focus of debate among neuroethicists (Sahakian, 2007; Greely et al., 2008). As in the example above, the enhancements neuroethicists most often discuss are cognitive enhancements: technologies that allow normal people to function cognitively at a higher level than they might without use of the technology (Knafo and Venero, 2015). One standing theoretical issue for neuroethics is a careful and precise articulation of whether, how and why cognitive enhancement has a philosophical status different than any other kind of enhancement, such as enhancement of physical capacities by the use of steroids (Dresler, 2019). Often overlooked are other interesting potential neuroenhancements. These are less frequently discussed than cognitive enhancements, but just as worthy of consideration. They include social/moral enhancements, such as the use of oxytocin to enhance pro-social behavior, and other noncognitive but biological enhancements, such as potential physical performance enhancers controlled by brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) (see, e.g. Savulescu and Persson, 2012; Douglas, 2008; Dubljevíc and Racine, 2017; Annals of NYAC, 2004). In many ways, discussions regarding these kinds of enhancement effectively recapitulate the cognitive enhancement debate, but in some respects they raise different concerns and prompt different arguments. 2.1.1 Arguments for Enhancement Naturalness: Although the aim of cognitive enhancement may at first seem ethically questionable at best, it is plausible that humans naturally engage in many forms of enhancement, including cognitive enhancement. Indeed, we typically applaud and value these efforts. After all, the aim of education is to cognitively enhance students (which, we now understand, occurs by changing their brains), and we look askance at those who devalue this particular enhancement, rather than at those who embrace it. So some kinds of cognitive enhancement are routine and unremarkable. Proponents of neuroenhancement will argue that there is no principled difference between the enhancements we routinely engage in, and enhancement by use of drugs or other neurotechnologies. Many in fact argue that we are a species whose nature it is to develop and use technology for augmenting our capacities, and that continual pursuit of enhancement is a mark of the human. Cognitive liberty: Those who believe that “cognitive liberty” (see section 2.2 below) is a fundamental right argue that an important element of the autonomy at stake in cognitive liberty is the liberty to determine for ourselves what to do with our minds and to them, including cognitive enhancement, if we so choose. Although many who champion “cognitive liberty” do so in the context of a strident political libertarianism (e.g. Boire, 2001), one can recognize the value of cognitive liberty without swallowing an entire political agenda. So, for example, even if we think that there is a prima facie right to determine our own cognitive states, there may be justifiable limits to that right. More work needs to be done to establish the boundaries of the cognitive liberty we ought to safeguard. Utilitarian arguments: Many proponents of cognitive enhancement point to the positive effects of enhancement and argue that the benefits outweigh the costs. In these utilitarian arguments it is important to consider the positive and negative effects not only for individuals, but also for society more broadly (see, e.g. Selgelid, 2007). Deontological arguments: Sometimes enhancements are argued to be an avenue for leveling the playing field, in pursuit of fairness and equity. Such arguments are bolstered by the finding that at least for some interventions, enhancement effects are greater for those who have lower baseline functioning than those starting with a higher baseline (President’s Commission on Bioethics, 2015). Practical arguments: These often point to the difficulty in enforcing regulations of extant technology, or the detrimental effects of trying to do so. They tend to be not really arguments in favor of enhancement, but rather reasons not to oppose its use. 2.1.2 Arguments against Enhancement There are a variety of arguments against enhancement. Most fall into the following types: Harms: The simplest and most powerful argument against enhancement is the claim that brain interventions carry with them the risk of harm, risks that make the use of these interventions unacceptable. The low bar for acceptable risk is an effect of the context of enhancement: risks deemed reasonable to incur when treating a deficiency or disease with the potential benefit of restoring normal function may be deemed unreasonable when the payoff is simply augmenting performance above a normal baseline. Some suggest that no risk is justified for enhancement purposes. In evaluating the strength of a harm-based argument against enhancement, several points should be considered: 1) What are the actual and potential harms and benefits (medical and social) of a given enhancement? 2) Who should make the judgments about appropriate tradeoffs? Different individuals may judge differently at what point the risk/benefit threshold occurs, and their judgments may depend upon the precise natures of the risks and benefits. Notice, too, the harm argument is toothless against enhancements that don’t pose any risks. Unnaturalness: A number of thinkers argue, in one form or another, that use of drugs or technologies to enhance our capacities is unnatural, and the implication is that unnatural implies immoral. Of course, to be a good argument, more reason has to be given both for why it is unnatural (see an argument for naturalness, above), and for why naturalness and morality align. Some arguments suggest that manipulating our cognitive machinery amounts to tinkering with “God-given” capacities, and usurping the role of God as creator can be easily understood as transgressive in a religious-moral framework. Despite its appeal to religious conservatives, a neuroethicist may want to offer a more ecumenical or naturalistic argument to support the link between unnatural and immoral, and will have to counter the claim, above, that it is natural for humans to enhance themselves. Diminishing human agency: Another argument suggests that the effect of enhancement will be to diminish human agency by undermining the need for real effort, and allowing for success with morally meaningless shortcuts. Human life will lose the value achieved by the process of striving for a goal and will be belittled as a result (see, e.g. Schermer, 2008; Kass, 2003). Although this is a promising form of argument, more needs to be done to undergird the claims that effort is intrinsically valuable. Recent work suggests no general argument to this effect is forthcoming (Douglas, 2019). After all, few find compelling the argument that we ought to abandon transportation by car for horses, walking, or bicycling, because these require more effort and thus have more moral value. The hubris objection: This interesting argument holds that the type of attitude that seems to underlie pursuit of such interventions is morally defective in some way, or is indicative of a morally defective character trait. So, for example, Michael Sandel suggests that the attitude underlying the attempt to enhance ourselves is a “Promethean” attitude of mastery that overlooks or underappreciates the “giftedness of human life.” It is the expression and indulgence of a problematic attitude of dominion toward life to which Sandel primarily objects: “The moral problem with enhancement lies less in the perfection it seeks than in the human disposition it expresses and promotes” (Sandel, 2002). Others have pushed back against this tack, arguing that the hubris objection against enhancement is at base a religious one, or that it fundamentally misunderstands the concepts it relies upon (Kahane, 2011). Equality and Distributive Justice: One question that routinely arises with new technological advances is “who gets to benefit from them?” As with other technologies, neuroenhancements are not free. However, worries about access are compounded in the case of neuroenhancements (as they may also be with other learning technologies). As enhancements increase capacities of those who use them, they are likely to further widen the already unconscionable gap between the haves and have-nots: We can foresee that those already well-off enough to afford enhancements will use them to increase their competitive advantage against others, leaving further behind those who cannot afford them. Not all arguments in this vein militate against enhancement. For example, the finding mentioned above -- that at least with some cognitive enhancement technologies, those who have lower baseline functioning experience greater improvements than those starting at a higher level -- could ground pro-enhancement fairness and equity arguments for leveling the playing field (President’s Commission on Bioethics, 2015). As public consciousness about racial and economic disparities increases, we should expect more neuroethical work on this topic. Although one can imagine policy solutions to distributive justice concerns, such as having enhancements covered by health insurance, having the state distribute them to those who cannot afford them, etc., widespread availability of neuroenhancements will inevitably raise questions about coercion. Coercion: The prospect of coercion is raised in several ways. Obviously, if the state decides to mandate an enhancement, treating its beneficial effects as a public health issue, this is effectively coercion. We see this currently in the backlash against vaccinations: they are mandated with the aim of promoting public health, but in some minds the mandate raises concerns about individual liberty. I would submit that the vaccination case demonstrates that at least on some occasions coercion is justified. The question is whether coercion could be justifiable for enhancement, rather than for harm prevention. Although some coercive ideas, such as the suggestion that we put Prozac or other enhancers in the water supply, are unlikely to be taken seriously as a policy issue (however, see Appel 2010 [2011]), less blatant forms of coercion are more realistic. For example, if people immersed in tomorrow’s competitive environment are in the company of others who are reaping the benefits from cognitive enhancement, they may feel compelled to make use of the same techniques just to remain competitive, even though they would rather not use enhancements. The danger is that respecting the autonomy of some may put pressure on the autonomy of others. There is unlikely to be any categorical resolution of the ethics of enhancement debate. The details of a technology will be relevant to determining whether a technology ought to be made available for enhancement purposes: we ought to treat a highly enhancing technology that causes no harm differently from one that provides some benefit at noticeable cost. Moreover, the magnitude of some of the equality-related issues will depend upon empirical facts about the technologies. Are neurotechnologies equally effective for everyone? As mentioned, there is evidence that some known enhancers such as the psychostimulants are more effective for those with deficiencies than for the unimpaired: studies suggest the beneficial effects of these drugs are proportional to the degree to which a capacity is impaired (Hussain et al., 2011). Other reports claim that normal subjects’ capacities are not actually enhanced by these drugs, and some aspects of functioning may actually be impaired (Mattay, et al., 2000; Ileva et al., 2013). If this is a widespread pattern, it may alleviate some worries about distributive justice and contributions to social and economic stratification, since people with a deficit will benefit proportionately more than those using the drug for enhancement purposes. Bear in mind, however, that biology is rarely that equitable, and it would be surprising if this pattern turned out to be the norm. Since the technologies that could provide enhancements are extremely diverse, ranging from drugs to implants to genetic manipulations, assessment of the risks and benefits and the way in which these technologies bear upon our conception of humanity will have to be empirically grounded. 2.2 Cognitive liberty Freedom is a cornerstone value in liberal democracies like our own, and one of the most cherished kinds of freedom is freedom of thought. The main elements of freedom of thought, or “cognitive liberty” as it is sometimes called (Sententia, 2013), include privacy and autonomy. Both of these can be challenged by the new developments in neuroscience. The value of, potential threat to, and ways to protect these aspects of freedom are a concern for neuroethics. Several recent papers have posited novel rights in this realm, such as rights to cognitive liberty, to mental privacy, to mental integrity, and to psychological continuity (Ienca and Andorno, 2017), or to psychological integrity and mental self-determination (Bublitz, 2020). 2.2.1 Privacy As the framers of our constitution were well aware, freedom is intimately linked with privacy: even being monitored is considered potentially “chilling” to the kinds of freedoms our society aims to protect. One type of freedom that has been championed in American jurisprudence is “the right to be let alone” (Warren and Brandeis, 1890), to be free from government or other intrusion in our private lives. In the past, mental privacy could be taken for granted: the first-person accessibility of the contents of consciousness ensured that the contents of one’s mind remained hidden to the outside world, until and unless they were voluntarily disclosed. Instead, the battles for freedom of thought were waged at the borders where thought meets the outside world -- in expression -- and were won with the First Amendment’s protections for those freedoms (note, however, that these protections are only against government infringement). Over the last half century, technological advances have eroded or impinged upon many traditional realms of worldly privacy. Most of the avenues for expression can be (and increasingly are) monitored by third parties. It is tempting to think that the inner sanctum of the mind remains the last bastion of real privacy. This may still be largely true, but even the privacy of the mind can no longer to be taken for granted. Our neuroscientific achievements have already made significant headway in allowing others to discern some aspects of our mental content through neurotechnologies. Noninvasive methods of brain imaging have revolutionized the study of human cognition and have dramatically altered the kinds of knowledge we can acquire about people and their minds. Niether is the threat to mental privacy as simple as the naive claim that neuroimaging can read our thoughts, nor are the capabilities of imaging so innocuous and blunt that we needn’t worry about that possibility. A focus of neuroethics is to determine the real nature of the threat to mental privacy, and to evaluate its ethical implications, many of which are relevant to legal, medical, and other social issues (Shen, 2013). For example, in a world in which the bastion of the mind may be lowering its drawbridges, do we need extra protections? Doing so effectively will require both a solid understanding of the neuroscientific technologies and the neural bases of thought, as well as a sensitivity to the ethical problems raised by our growing knowledge and ever-more-powerful neurotechnologies. These dual necessities illustrate why neuroethicists must be trained both in neuroscience and in ethics. In what follows I briefly discuss the most relevant neurotechnology and its limitations and then canvas a few ways in which privacy may be infringed by it. 2.2.1.2 An illustration: Potential threats to privacy with Functional MRI One of the most prominent neurotechnologies poised to pose a threat to privacy is Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or MRI. MRI can provide both structural and functional information about a person’s brain with minimal risk and inconvenience. In general, MRI is a tool that allows researchers noninvasively to examine or monitor brain structure and activity, and to correlate that structure or function with behavior. Structural or anatomical MRI provides high-resolution structural images of the brain. While structural imaging in the biosciences is not new, MRI provides much higher resolution and better ability to differentiate tissues than prior techniques such as x-rays or CT scans. However, it is not structural but functional MRI (fMRI) that has revolutionized the study of human cognition. fMRI provides information about correlates of neuronal activity, from which neural activity can be inferred. Recent advances in analysis methods for neuroimaging data such as multi-voxel pattern analysis and related techniques now allow relatively fine-grained “decoding” of brain activity. Decoding involves probabilistic matching, using machine learning, of an observed pattern of brain activation with experimentally established correlations between activity patterns and some kind of functional variable, such as task, behavior, or content. The kind of information provided by functional imaging promises to provide important evidence useful for three goals: Decoding mental content, diagnosis, and prediction. Neuroethical questions arise in all these areas. Before discussing these issues, it is important to remember that neuroimaging is a technology that is subject to a number of significant limitations, and these technical issues limit how precise the inferences can be. For example: The correlations between the fMRI signal and neural activity are rough: the signal is delayed in time from the neuronal activity, and spatially smeared, thus limiting the spatial and temporal precision of the information that can be inferred. A number of dynamic factors relate the fMRI signal to activity, and the precise underlying model is not yet well-understood. There is relatively low signal-to-noise, necessitating averaging across trials and often across people. Individual brains differ both in brain structure and in function. Variability makes determining when differences are clinically or scientifically relevant difficult, and leads to noisy data. Due to natural individual variability in structure and function, and brain plasticity (especially during development), even large differences in structure or deviation from the norm may not be indicative of any functional deficiency. Cognitive strategies can also affect variability in the data. These sources of variability can complicate the analysis of data and provide even more leeway for differences to exist without implying dysfunction. Activity in a brain area does not entail that the region is necessary for performance of the task. fMRI is so sensitive to motion that it would be virtually impossible to get information from a noncompliant subject. This makes the prospect of reading content from an unwilling mind virtually impossible. Without appreciating these technical issues and the resulting limits to what can legitimately be inferred from fMRI, one is likely to overestimate or mischaracterize the potential threat that it poses. In fact, much of the fear of mindreading expressed in non-scientific publications stems from a lack of understanding of the science (Racine, 2015). For example, there is no scientific basis to the worry that imaging would enable the reading of mental content without our knowing it. Thus, fears that the government is able to remotely or covertly monitor the thoughts of citizens are unfounded. 2.2.1.1 Decoding of mental content Noninvasive ways of inferring neural activity have led many to worry that mindreading is possible, not just in theory, but even now. Using decoding techniques fMRI can be used, for example, to reconstruct a visual stimulus from activity of the visual cortex while a subject is looking at a scene or to determine whether a subject is looking at a familiar face, or hearing a particular sound. If mental content supervenes on the physical structure and function of our brains, as most philosophers and neuroscientists think it does, then in principle it should be possible to read minds by reading brains. Because of the potential to identify mental content, decoding raises issues about mental privacy. Despite the remarkable advances in brain imaging technology, however, when it comes to mental content, our current abilities to “mind-read” are relatively limited, but continually improving (Roskies, 2015, 2020). Although some aspects of content can be decoded from neural data, these tend to be quite general and nonpropositional in character. The ability to infer semantic meaning from ideation or visual stimulation tends to work best when the realm of possible contents are quite constrained. Our current abilities allow us to infer some semantic atoms, such as representations denoting one of a prespecified set of concrete objects, but not unconstrained content, or entire propositions. Of course, future advances might make worries about mindreading more pressing. For example, if we develop robust means for decoding compositional meaning, we may one day come to be able to decode propositional thought. Still, some worries are warranted. Even if neuroimaging is not at the stage where mindreading is possible, it can nonetheless threaten aspects of privacy in ways that should give us pause. It is possible to identify individuals on the basis of their brain scans (Valizadeh et al., 2018). In addition, neuroimaging can provide some insights into attributes of people that they may not want known or disclosed. In some cases, subjects may not even know that these attributes are being probed, thinking they are being scanned for other purposes. A willing subject may not want certain things to be monitored. In what follows, I consider a few of these more realistic worries. Implicit bias: Although explicitly acknowledged racial biases are declining, this may be due to a reporting bias attributable to the increased negative social valuation of racial prejudice. Much contemporary research now focuses on examining implicit racial biases, which are automatic or unconscious reflections of racial bias. With fMRI and EEG, it is possible to interrogate implicit biases, sometimes without the subject’s awareness that that is what is being measured (Checkroud, 2014)[3]. While there is disagreement about how best to interpret implicit bias results (e.g., as a measure of perceived threat, as in-group/out-group distinctions, etc.), and what relevance they have for behavior, the possibility that implicit biases can be measured, either covertly or overtly, raises scientific and ethical questions (Molenberghs and Louis, 2018). When ought this information be collected? What procedures must be followed for subjects legitimately to consent to implicit measures? What significance should be attributed to evidence of biases? What kind of responsibility should be attributed to people who hold them? What predictive power might they hold? Should they be used for practical purposes? One can imagine obvious but controversial potential uses for implicit bias measures in legal situations, in employment contexts, in education, and in policing, all areas in which concerns of social justice are significant. Lie detection: Several neurotechnologies are being used to detect deception or neural correlates of lying or concealing information in experimental situations. For example, both fMRI measures and EEG analysis techniques relying on the P300 signal have been used in the laboratory to detect deception with varying levels of success. These methods are subject to a variety of criticisms (Farah et al., 2014). For example, almost all experimental studies fail to study real lying or deception, but instead investigate some version of instructed misdirection. The context, tasks, and motivations differ greatly between actual instances of lying and these experimental analogs, calling into question the ecological validity of these experimental techniques. Moreover, accuracy, though significantly higher than chance, is far from perfect, and because of the inability to determine base rates of lying, error rates cannot be effectively assessed. Thus, we cannot establish their reliability for real-world uses. Finally, both physical and mental countermeasures decrease the accuracy of these methods (Hsu et al., 2019). Despite these limitations, several companies have marketed neurotechnologies for this purpose. Character traits: Neurotechnologies have shown some promise in identifying or predicting aspects of personality or character. In an interesting study aimed at determining how well neuroimaging could detect lies, Greene and colleagues gave subjects in the fMRI scanner a prediction task in a game of chance that they could easily cheat on. By using statistical analysis the researchers could identify a group of subjects who clearly cheated and others who did not (Greene and Paxton, 2009). Although they could not determine with neuroimaging on which trials subjects cheated, there were overall differences in brain activation patterns between cheaters and those who played fair and were at chance in their predictions. Moreover, Greene and colleagues repeated this study at several months remove, and found that the character trait of honesty or dishonesty was stable over time: cheaters the first time were likely to cheat (indeed, cheated even more the second time), and honest players remained honest the second time around. Also interesting was the fact that the brain patterns suggested that cheaters had to activate their executive control systems more than noncheaters, not only when they cheated, but also when deciding not to cheat. While the differential activations cannot be linked specifically to the propensity to cheat rather than to the act of cheating, the work suggests that these task-related activation patterns may reflect correlates of trustworthiness. The prospect of using methods for detecting these sorts of traits or behaviors in real-world situations raises a host of thorny issues. What level of reliability should be required for their employment? In what circumstances should they be admissible as evidence in the courtroom? For other purposes? Using lie detection or decoding techniques from neuroscience in legal contexts may raise constitutional concerns: Is brain imaging a search or seizure as protected by the 4th Amendment? Would its forcible use be precluded by 5th Amendment rights? These questions, though troubling, might not be immediately pressing: in a landmark case (US v. Semrau, 2012) the court ruled that fMRI lie detection is inadmissible, given its current state of development. However, the opinion left open the possibility that it may be admissible in the future, if methods improve. Finally, to the extent that relevant activation patterns may be found to correlate significantly with activation patterns on other tasks, or with a task-free measure such as default-network activity, it raises the possibility that information about character could be inferred merely by scanning them doing something innocuous, without their knowledge of the kind of information being sought. Thus, there are multiple dimensions to the threat to privacy posed by imaging techniques. 2.2.1.2 Diagnosis Increasingly, neuroimaging information can bear upon diagnoses for diseases, and in some instances may provide predictive information prior to the onset of symptoms. Work on the default network is promising for improving diagnosis in certain diseases without requiring that subjects perform specific tasks in the scanner (Buckner et al., 2008). For some diseases, such as in Alzheimer’s disease, MRI promises to provide diagnostic information that previously could only be established at autopsy (Liu et al., 2018). fMRI signatures have also been linked to a variety of psychiatric diseases, although not yet with the reliability required for clinical diagnosis (Aydin et al., 2019). Neuroethical issues also arise regarding ways to handle incidental findings, that is, evidence of unsymptomatic tumors or potentially benign abnormalities that appear in the course of scanning research subjects for non-medical purposes (Illes et al. 2006; Illes and Sahakian, 2011). The ability to predict future functional deficits raises a host of issues, many of which have been previously addressed by genethics (the ethics of genetics), since both provide information about future disease risk. What may be different is that the diseases for which neurotechnologies are diagnostically useful are those that affect the brain, and thus potentially mental competence, mood, personality, or sense of self. As such they may raise peculiarly neuroethical questions (see below). 2.2.1.3 Prediction As discussed, decoding methods allow one to associate observed brain activity with previously observed brain/behavior correlations. In addition, such methods can also be used to predict future behaviors, insofar as these are correlated with observations of brain activity patterns. Some studies have already reported predictive power over upcoming decisions (Soon et al., 2008). Increasingly, we will see neuroscience or neuroimaging data that will give us some predictive power over longer-range future behaviors. For example, brain imaging may allow us to predict the onset of psychiatric symptoms such as psychotic or depressive episodes. In cases in which this behavior is indicative of mental dysfunction it raises questions about stigma, but also may allow more effective interventions. One confusion regarding neuro prediction should be clarified immediately: When neuroimages are said to “predict” future activity, it means they provide some statistical information regarding likelihood. Prediction in this sense does not imply that the predicted behavior necessarily will come to pass; it does not mean a person’s future is fated or determined. Although scientists occasionally make this mistake when discussing their results, the fact that brain function or structure may give us some information about future behaviors should not be interpreted as a strong challenge to free will. The prevalence of this mistake among both philosophers and scientists again illustrates the importance for neuroethicists of sophistication in both neuroscience and philosophy. Perhaps the most consequential and most ethically difficult potential use of predictive information is in the criminal justice system. For example, there is evidence that structural brain differences are predictive of scores on the PCL-R, a tool developed to diagnose psychopathy. It is also well-established that psychopaths have high rates of recidivism for violent offenses. Thus, in principle neuroimaging could be used to provide information about an individual’s likelihood of recidivism. Indeed, brain information appears to offer some predictive value when combined with other factors (Poldrack et al., 2019; Delfin et al., 2019). One cautionary tale comes from a recent exchange in the literature: A report suggested that brain activity on a cognitive task predicts recidivism (Aharoni et al., 2013), but a critical reanalysis of the data suggests that methodological concerns led to an overestimate of the predictive value of the neural data (Poldrack et al., 2019; Aharoni et al., 2014), highlighting the importance of technical expertise in assessing the findings and for translating the results of scientific experiments for practical purposes and ethical analysis. Neuroethical analysis here is essential. Should neural data be admissible for determining sentences or parole decisions? Would that be equivalent to punishing someone for crimes they have not committed? Or is it just a neutral extension of current uses of actuarial information, such as age, gender, and income level? At an extreme, one could imagine using predictive information to detain people who have not yet committed a crime, arresting them before they do. This dystopian scenario, portrayed in the film Minority Report (Speilberg, 2002), also illustrates how our abilities to predict can raise difficult ethical and policy questions when they collide with intuitions about and the value of free will and autonomy. More generally, work in neuroethics could be of significant practical use for the law, and indeed is often called by another moniker, “neurolaw” (see section 2.7). In sum, neuroimaging techniques raise a number of neuroethical issues. The ones discussed above pertain to the use of fMRI, currently an expensive and cumbersome technique. But other imaging methods exist that could be far more widespread. If car companies install imaging methods, for example using NIRS (near infrared spectroscopy), which is an imaging method that could be used at a distance and without the subject’s knowledge, or some other form of brain monitoring (https://www.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2015/06/jaguar-land-rover-road-safety-research-includes-brain-wave-monitoring-improve-driver) to monitor levels of attention in order to alert drivers who begin to doze off, could that data be used in a court of law in the event of an accident? Even though the kind of information these methods provide is very crude and generally unsuitable for decoding mental content, there are conceivable everyday situations on the horizon in which issues of mental privacy and neurotechnology might arise. 2.2.2 Autonomy and authenticity A second way in which cognitive liberty could be impacted is by limiting a person’s autonomy. Autonomy is the freedom to be the person one wants to be, to pursue one’s own goals without unjustifiable hindrances or interference, to be self-governing. Although definitions of autonomy differ, it is widely appreciated as a valuable aspect of personhood. Autonomy of the mental can be impacted in a number of ways. Here are several: Direct interventions: The ability to directly manipulate our brains to control our thoughts or behavior is an obvious threat to our autonomy (Gilbert, 2015; Walker and Mackenzie, 2020). Some of our neurotechnologies offer that potential, although these sorts of neurotechnologies are invasive and used only in cases where they are medically justified. Other types of interventions, such as the administration of drugs to calm a psychotic person, may also impact autonomy. We know that stimulating certain brain areas in animals will lead to repetitive and often stereotyped behaviors. Scientists have implanted rats with electrodes and have been able to control their foraging behaviors by stimulating their cortex. In theory we could control a person’s behavior by implanting electrodes in the relevant regions of cortex. In practice, we have a few methods that can do this, but only in a limited way. For example, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) applied to motor cortex can elicit involuntary movements in the part of the body controlled by the cortical area affected, or when repetitively administered it can inhibit activity for a period of time, acting as a temporary lesion. Effects will vary depending on what area of the brain is stimulated; higher cognitive functions can be impacted as well. Relatively invasive methods, such as Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS, discussed below) and electrocorticography (ECOG), both techniques requiring brain surgery, demonstrate that direct interventions can affect cognition, action, and emotion, often in very particular and predictable ways. However much of a threat to autonomy these methods pose in theory, they are rarely used with the aim of compromising autonomy. On the contrary, direct brain interventions, when used, are largely aimed at augmenting or restoring rather than bypassing or diminishing autonomy (Roskies, 2015; Brown, 2015). For example, one rapidly advancing field in neuroscience is the area of neural prostheses and brain computer interfaces (Jebari, 2013; Klein et al. 2015). Neural prostheses are artificial systems that replace defective neural ones, usually of sensory systems. Some of the more advanced and widely-known are artificial cochleas. Other systems have been developed that allow vision-like information to feed to touch-specific receptors, enabling blind people to navigate the visual world. Brain computer interfaces, on the other hand, are systems that read brain activity and use it to guide robotic prostheses for limbs, or to move a cursor on a video screen. Prosthetic limbs that are guided by neural signals have restored motor agency to paraplegics and quadriplegics, and other BCIs have been used to communicate with people who are “locked in” and cannot move their bodies (Abbott and Peck, 2017). Advisory and predictive implants use neural information to warn patients about the risk of, for example, an upcoming seizure, allowing them to prophylactically self-medicate (Brown, 2015; Lazaro-Munoz et al., 2017). Thus, although in principle brain interventions could be used to control people and diminish their autonomy, in general, direct interventions are being developed to restore and enhance it (Lavazza, 2018). Neuroeconomics and neuromarketing: There are more subtle ways to impact autonomy than direct brain manipulations, and these are well within our grasp: Our thoughts can be manipulated indirectly: old worries prompted by propaganda and subliminal advertising have taken on a renewed currency with the advent of neuroeconomics and neuromarketing (Spence, 2020). By better understanding how we process reward, how we make decisions more generally, and how we can bias or influence that process, we open the door to more effective external indirect manipulations. Indeed, social psychology has been showing how subtle alterations to our external environment can affect beliefs, moods, and behaviors. The precise threats posed by understanding the neural mechanisms of decision making have yet to be fully articulated (Stanton et al., 2017). Is neuromarketing being used merely to design products that satisfy our desires more fully or is it being used to manipulate us? Depending on how you see it, it could be construed as a good or an evil. Does understanding the neural substrates of choice and reward provide advertisers more effective tools than they had merely by using behavioral data, or just more costly ones? Do consumers consequently have less autonomy? How can we compensate for or counteract these measures? These questions have yet to be adequately addressed. Regulation: Yet another way that autonomy can be impacted is by restricting the things that a person can do with and to her own mind. For instance, banning mind-altering drugs is an externally imposed restraint on people’s ability to choose their states of consciousness (Biore, 2001). The degree to which a person should be prevented from doing what he wishes to his or her self, body or mind, is an ethical issue on which people have differing opinions. Some claim this kind of regulation is a problematic infringement of autonomy, but certain regulations of this type are already largely accepted in our society. Regulation of drugs does impact our autonomy, but it arguably averts potentially great harms. Allowing cognitive enhancing technologies only for treatment uses but not for enhancement purposes is another restriction of mental autonomy. Whether it is one we want to sanction is still up for debate. Regardless, as the coronavirus pandemic has made abundantly clear, complete autonomy is not practically possible in a world in which one person’s actions affect the well-being of others. Belief in free will: Advances in neuroscience have been frequently claimed to have bearing upon the question of whether we have free will and on whether we can be truly morally responsible for our actions. Although the philosophical problem of free will is generally considered to be a metaphysical problem, demonstrable lack of freedom would have significant ethical consequences. A number of neuroscientists and psychologists have intimated or asserted that neuroscience can show or has shown that free will is an illusion (Brembs, 2010; Libet, 1983; Soon, 2010; Harris, 2012). Others have countered with arguments to the effect that such a demonstration is in principle impossible (Roskies 2006). Regardless of what science actually shows about the nature of free will, the fact that people believe neuroscience evidence supports or undermines free will has been shown to have practical consequences. For example, evidence merely supporting the premise that our minds are a function of our brains, as most of neuroscience does, is perceived by some people to be a challenge to free will. And in several studies, manipulating belief in free will affects the likelihood of cheating (e.g. Vohs and Schooler 2008). The debate within neuroscience about the nature and existence of free will will remain relevant to neuroethics in part because of its impact on our moral, legal and interpersonal practices of blaming and punishing people for their harmful actions. 2.3 Personal Identity One of the aspects of neuroethics that makes it distinctive and importantly different from traditional bioethics is that we recognize that, in some yet-to-be-articulated sense, the brain is the seat of who we are. For example, we now have techniques that alter memories by blunting them, strengthening them, or selectively editing them. We have drugs that affect sexuality, and others that affect mood. Here, neuroethics rubs up against some of the most challenging and contentious questions in philosophy: What is the self? What sorts of changes can we undergo and still remain ourselves? What is it that makes us the same person over time? Of what value is this temporal persistence? What costs would changing personhood incur? Because neuroscience intervention techniques can affect memory, desires, personality, mood, impulsivity and other things we might think of as constitutive of the person or the self, the changes they can cause (and combat) have a unique potential to affect both the meaning and quality of the most intimate aspects of our lives. Although neuroethics is quite different from traditional bioethics in this regard, it is not so different from genethics. For a long time, it was argued that “you are your genes”, and so the ability to interrogate our genomes, to change them, or to select among them was seen as both a promising and potentially problematic one, enabling us to understand and manipulate human nature to an extent far beyond any we had previously enjoyed. But as we have discovered, we are not (just) our genes. Our ability to sequence the human genome has not laid bare the causes of cancer, the genetic basis for intelligence, or of psychiatric illness, as many had anticipated. One reason is that our genome is a distal cause of the people we come to be: many complex and intervening factors matter along the way. Our brains, on the other hand, are a far more proximal cause of who we are and what we do. Our moment-to-moment behavior and our long-range plans are directly controlled by our brains, in a way they are not directly controlled by our genomes. If “You are your genes” seemed a plausible maxim, “You are your brain” is far more so. Despite its plausibility, it is notoriously difficult to articulate the way in which we are our brains: What aspects of our brains makes us the people that we are? What aspects of brain function shape our memories, our personality, our dispositions? What aspects are irrelevant or inessential to who we are? What makes possible a coherent sense of self? The lack of answers we have to these deep neurophilosophical questions does little to alleviate the pragmatic worries raised by neuroscience, since our ability to intervene in brains outstrips our understanding of what we are doing, and can affect all these aspects of our being. In philosophy, work focusing on persons may address a variety of distinct issues using different constructs. Philosophers might be interested in the nature of personhood, in the nature of the self, in the kinds of traits and psychological states or processes that give an experienced life coherence or authenticity, or in the ingredients for a flourishing life. Each calls for its own analysis. Outside of philosophy, many of these issues are run together, and confusion often results. Neuroethics, while in a unique position to leverage these issues and apply them in a fruitful way, often fails to make the most of the conceptual work philosophers have done in this area. For example, papers in neuroethics often conflate a number of these distinct concepts, referring them under the rubric of “personal identity”. This conflation further muddies already difficult waters, and diminishes the potential value of neuroethical work. Below I try to give a brief roadmap of the separate strands that neuroethicists have been concerned with. The philosopher’s conception of personal identity refers to the issue of what makes a person at one time numerically identical to a person at another time. This metaphysical question has been addressed by a variety of philosophical theories. For example, some theorists argue that what it is to be the numerically identical over time is to be the same human organism (Olson, 1999), and that being the same organism is determined by sameness of life. If having the same life is the relevant criterion, one could argue that life-sustaining areas of the brainstem are essential to personal identity (Olson, 1999). For those who believe instead that bodily integrity is what is essential, the ability of neuroscience to alter the brain will arguably have little effect on personal identity. Many other philosophers have identified the same person as being grounded in psychological continuity of some sort (e.g., Locke). If this criterion is the correct one, then the stringency of that criterion may be crucial: radical brain manipulation may cause an abrupt enough shift in memories and other psychological states that a person after brain intervention is no longer the same person he or she was prior. The more stringent the criterion, the greater is the potential threat of neurotherapies to personal identity (Jecker and Ko, 2017; Pascalev et al. 2016). On the other hand, if the standards for psychological continuity or connectedness are high enough, changes in personal identity may in fact be commonplace even without neurotherapies. Recognizing this may prompt us to question the criterion and/or the importance or value of personal identity. Parfit, for example, argues that what makes us one and the same person over time, and what we value (psychological continuity and connectedness) come apart (Parfit, 1984). For some, the question of personhood comes apart from the question of identity. Even if personal (i.e. numerical) identity is unchallenged by neurotechnologies and by brain dysfunction, important neuroethical questions may still be raised. Philosophers less concerned with metaphysical questions about numerical identity have focused more on the self, and on notions of authenticity and self-identification, emphasizing the importance of the psychological perspective of the person in question in creating a coherent self (Mackenzie and Walker, 2015; Erler, 2011; Pugh et al., 2017). In this vein, Schectman has suggested that what is important is the ability to create a coherent narrative, or “narrative self” (Schectman, 2014). There is evidence that the ability to create and sustain a coherent narrative in which we are the protagonist and with which we identify, is a measure of psychological health (Waters et al., 2014). On the other hand, some philosophers deny that they have a narrative self and locate selfhood in a synchronic property (Strawson, 2004). To further complicate matters, it has been suggested that there is a distinction between the narrative person and the narrative self, these being differentiable via degrees of appropriation. Concerns about the nature and coherence of the narrative self, and about authenticity and autonomy, tend to be the ones most relevant to neuroethics, since these constructs clearly can be affected by even modest brain changes. For example, how do we evaluate the costs and ethical issues attending a dramatic change in personality, or a modification of key memories? What are the criteria governing whether one is authentic or inauthentic, and what is the value of authenticity? If neurointerventions promise to result in dramatic shifts in a person’s values and commitments, whose interests should take priority if one person must be favored - the original or the resulting person? The relevance of personhood, self, agency, identity and identification needs further elaboration for neuroethics. In what follows we discuss how one neurotechnology can bear upon some of these questions. 2.3.1 Example: Deep Brain Stimulation Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) involves the stimulation of chronically implanted electrodes deep in the brain, and it is FDA approved for treating Parkinson’s Disease, a neurodegenerative disease affecting the dopamine neurons in the striatum. Neuromodulation with DBS often restores motor function in these patients, permitting many to live much improved lives. It is also being explored as treatments for treatment-resistant depression, OCD, addiction, and other neurological and psychiatric issues. Although DBS is clearly a boon to many people suffering from neurological diseases, there are a number of puzzling issues that arise from its adoption. First, it is a highly invasive treatment, requiring brain surgery and permanent implantation of a stimulator, thus posing a real possibility of harm and raising questions of cost/benefit tradeoffs. This is coupled with the fact that scientists have little mechanistic understanding of how the treatment works when it does, and treatment regimes and electrode placement tend to be symptomatic. Occasionally DBS causes unusual side effects, such as mood changes, hypomania or mania, addictive behaviors, or hypersexual behavior. In one case a patient with wide-ranging musical tastes developed a fixation for Johnny Cash’s music, which persisted until stimulation was ceased (Mantione et al., 2014). Other reported cases involve changes in personality. The ethical questions in this area revolve around the ethics of intervening in ways that alter mood and/or personality, which is often discussed in terms of personal identity or “changing who the person is”, and around questions of autonomy and alienation (Klaming et al, 2013; Kraemer, 2013a). One poignant example from the literature tells of a patient who, without intervention, was bedridden and had to be hospitalized due to severe motor dysfunction caused by Parkinson’s Disease (Leentjens et al., 2003). DBS resulted in a marked improvement in his motor symptoms but also caused him to be untreatably manic, which required institutionalization. Thus, this unfortunate man had to choose between being bedridden and catatonic, or manic and institutionalized. He made the choice (in his unstimulated state) to remain on stimulation (the literature does not mention whether his stimulated self concurred, as he was not deemed mentally competent in that state) (Kraemer, 2013b). While it did not happen in this case, one could imagine a situation in which the patient will choose, while unstimulated, to undergo chronic stimulation, but, while under stimulation, would choose otherwise (or vice versa). The possibility for dilemmas or paradoxes will arise when, for example, we try to determine the value of two potential outcomes that are differently valued by the people who might exist. To which person (or to the person in which state) should we give priority? Or, even more perplexing: if the “identity” (narrative or numerical) of the person is indeed shifted by the treatment, should we give one person the authority to consent to a procedure or choose an outcome that in practice affects a different person? DBS cases like this will provide fodder for neuroethicists for years to come (Skorburg and Sinnott-Armstrong, 2020). Many other neurotechnologies that have been developed for treating brain dysfunction have primary or side effects that affect some aspect of what we may think of as related to human agency (Zuk et al., 2018). The ethical issues that arise with these neurotechnologies involve determining 1) in which way they do impact our selves or our agency; 2) what value, positive or negative we should put on this impact (or ability to so affect agency); and 3) how to weigh the positive gains against the negatives. One issue that has been raised is whether we possess a clear enough conception of the elements of agency in order to effectively perform this sort of analysis (Roskies, 2015). Moreover, given the likelihood that no objective criteria exist for how to evaluate tradeoffs in these elements, and the fact that different people may value different aspects of themselves differently, the weighing process will likely have to be subjectively relativized. Finally, DBS as well as neural prostheses and BCIs raise another neuroethical issue: our conception of humanity and our relations to machines. Some contend that these technologies effectively turn a person into a cyborg, making him or her something other than human. While some find this an ethically unproblematic natural extension of our species’ characteristic drive to invent and improve our selves with technology (Clark, 2004), others fear that creating a bio-cybernetic organism raises troubling questions about the nature or value of humanity, about the bounds of self, or about Promethean impulses. These questions too fall squarely in the domain of neuroethics. 2.4 Consciousness, life, and death The Hard Problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995) has yielded little to the probings of neuroscience, and it is not clear whether it ever will. However, in the last decade impressive advances have been made in other realms of consciousness research. Most impressive have been the improvements in detecting altered levels of consciousness with brain imaging. Diagnosing behaviorally unresponsive patients has long been a problem for neurology, although as long as 20 years ago, neurologists had recognized systematic differences between and prognoses for a persistent vegetative state (PVS), a minimally conscious state (MCS), and locked-in syndrome, a syndrome in which the patient has normal levels of awareness but cannot move. Functional brain imaging has fundamentally changed the problems faced by those caring for these patients. Owen and colleagues have shown that it is possible to identify some patients mischaracterized as being in PVS by demonstrating that they are able to understand commands and follow directions (Owen, 2006). In these studies, both normal subjects and brain injured patients were instructed to visualize doing two different activities while in the fMRI scanner. In normal subjects these two tasks activated different parts of cortex. Owen showed that one patient diagnosed as in PVS showed this normal pattern, unlike other PVS patients, who showed no differential activation when given these instructions. This data suggests that some PVS diagnosed subjects can in fact process and understand the instructions, and that they have the capacity for sustained attention and voluntary mental action. These results were later replicated in other such patients, and based on small cohorts, it is estimated that approximately 20% of PVS patients have been misdiagnosed. In a later study the same group used these imagination techniques to elicit from some patients with severe brain injury answers to Yes/No questions (Monti et al., 2010). More recent work aims to adapt these methods for EEG, a cheaper and more portable neurotechnology (Bai et al., 2019). Neuroimaging provides new tools for evaluating and diagnosing patients with disorders of consciousness (Owen, 2013; Campbell, 2020). These studies have the potential to revolutionize the way in which patients with altered states of consciousness are diagnosed and cared for, may have bearing on when life support is terminated, and raise the possibility of allowing patients to have some control over questions regarding their care and end of life decisions (Peterson et al., 2020; Braddock, 2017). This last possibility, while in some ways alleviating some worries about how to treat severely brain-damaged individuals, raises other thorny ethical problems. One of the most pressing is how to deal with questions of competence and informed consent: These are people with severe brain damage, and even when they do appear capable on occasion of understanding and answering questions, there are still questions about whether their abilities are stable, how sophisticated they are, and whether they can competently make decisions about such weighty issues, as well as whether it is really in their interest to remain on life support (Kahane and Savalescu, 2009; Fischer and Truog, 2017). Nonetheless, these methods open up new possibilities for diagnosis and treatment, and for restoring a measure of autonomy and self-determination to people with severe brain damage. 2.5 Practical neuroethics Medical practice and neuroscientific research raise a number of neuroethical issues, many of which are common to bioethics. For example, issues of consent, of incidental findings, of competence, and of privacy of information arise here. In addition, practicing neurologists, psychologists and psychiatrists may routinely encounter certain brain diseases, disabilities, or psychological dysfunctions that raise neuroethical issues that they must address in their practices. (For a more detailed discussion of these more applied issues approached from a pragmatic point of view, see for example Racine, 2010; Martineau and Racine, 2020). 2.6 Public perception of neuroscience The advances of neuroscience have become a common topic in the popular media, with colorful brain images becoming a pervasive illustrative trope in news stories about neuroscience. While no one doubts that popularizing neuroscience is a positive good, neuroethicists have been legitimately worried about the possibilities for misinformation. These include worries about “the seductive allure” of neuroscience, and of misleading and oversimplified media coverage of complex scientific questions. 2.6.1 The seductive allure There is a documented tendency for the layperson to think that information that makes reference to the brain, or to neuroscience or neurology, is more privileged, more objective, or more trustworthy than information that makes reference to the mind or psychology. For example, Weisberg and colleagues report that subjects with little or no neuroscience training rated bad explanations as better when they made reference to the brain or incorporated neuroscientific terminology (Weisberg et al., 2008). This “seductive allure of neuroscience” is akin to an unwarranted epistemic deference to authority. This differential appraisal extends into real-world settings, with testimony from a neuroscientist or neurologist judged to be more credible than that of a psychologist. The tendency is to view neuroscience as a hard science, in contrast to “soft” methods of inquiry that focus on function or behavior. With neuroimaging methods, this belies a deep misunderstanding of the genesis and significance of the neuroscientific information. What people fail to realize is that neuroimaging information is classified and interpreted by its ties to function, so (barring unusual circumstances) it cannot be more reliable or “harder” than the psychology it relies upon. Brain images in particular have prompted worries that the colorful images of brains with “hotspots” that accompany media coverage could themselves be misleading. If people intuitively appreciate brain images as if they were akin to a photograph of the brain in action, that this could mislead them into thinking of these images as objective representations of reality, prompting them to overlook the many inferential steps and nondemonstrative decisions that underlie creation of the image they see (Roskies, 2007). The worry is that the powerful pull of the brain image will lend a study more epistemic weight than is justified, and discourage people from asking the many complicated questions that one must ask in order to understand what the image signifies, and what can be inferred from the data. Further work, however, has suggested that once one takes into account the privilege accorded to neuroscience over psychology, the images themselves do not further mislead (Schweitzer et al., 2011). 2.6.2 Media Hype In this era of indubitably exciting progress in brain research, there is a “brain-mania” that is partially warranted but holds its own dangers. The culture of science is such that it is not uncommon for scientists to describe their work in the most dramatic terms possible in order to secure funding and/or fame. Although the hyperbole can be discounted by knowledgeable readers, those less sophisticated about the science may take it at face value. Studies have shown that the media is rarely critical of the scientific findings they report, and they tend not to present alternative interpretations (Racine, 2006, 2015). The result is that the popular media conveys sometimes wildly inaccurate pictures of legitimate scientific discoveries, which can fuel both overly optimistic enthusiasm as well as fear. One of the clear pragmatic goals of neuroethics, whether it regards basic research or clinical treatments, is to exhort and educate scientists and the media to better convey both the promise and complexities of scientific research. It is the job of both these groups to teach people enough about science in general, and brain science in particular, that they see it as worthy of respect, and also of the same critical assessment that to which scientists themselves subject their own work. It is admittedly difficult to accurately translate complicated scientific findings for the lay public, but it is essential. Overstatement of the significance of results can instill unwarranted hope in some cases, fear in others, and jadedness and suspicion going forward. Providing fodder for scientific naysayers has policy implications that go far beyond the reach of neuroscience. Mistrust of science is its own epidemic that needs to be inoculated against by careful, early, and continuing education of the public. This is essential for the future status and funding of the basic sciences, and, as we have seen, for the health of democracy and our planet more generally. 2.7 Neuroscience and justice Social justice is a concern of ethics, and of neuroethics. Many of the ethical questions are not new, but some have novel aspects. Bioethics also has traditionally been concerned with issues of respect for patient’s autonomy and right to self-determination. As mentioned above, these questions take on added weight when the organ at issue is the patient’s brain, and questions about competence arise. Ethical issues also attend doing neuroscientific research on nonhumans. Like traditional bioethics, neuroethics must address questions about the ethical use of animals for experimental purposes in neuroscience. In addition, however, it ought to consider questions regarding the use of animals as model systems for understanding the human brain and human cognition (Johnson et al., 2020). Animal studies have given us the bulk of our understanding of neural physiology and anatomy and have provided significant insight into function of conserved biological capacities. However, the further we push into unknown territory about higher cognitive functions, the more we will have to attend to the specifics of similarities and differences between humans and other species and evaluating the model system may involve considerable philosophical work. In some cases, the dissimilarities may not warrant animal experiments. Other issues to which neuroethics also must be attentive to involve social justice. As neuroscience promises to offer treatments and enhancements, it must attend to issues of distributive justice, and play a role in ensuring that the fruits of neuroscientific research do not go only to those who enjoy the best our society has to offer. Moreover, a growing understanding that poverty and socioeconomic status more generally have long-lasting cognitive effects raises moral questions about the social policy and the structure of our society, and the growing gap between rich and poor (Farah, 2017). It seems that the social and neuroscientific realities may reveal the American Dream to be largely hollow, and these findings may undercut some popular political ideologies. There are also global issues to consider (Stein and Singh, 2020). Justice may demand more involvement of neuroethicists in policy decisions. Finally, neuroethics stretches seamlessly into the law (see, e.g. Vincent, 2013; Morse and Roskies, 2013; Jones et al., 2014). Neuroethical issues arise in criminal law, in particular with the issue of criminal responsibility (see, e.g. Birks & Douglas, 2018). For example, the recognition that a large percentage of prison inmates have some history of head trauma or other abnormality raises the question of where to draw the line between the bad and the mad. Neuroethics has bearing on issues of addiction and juvenile responsibility, as well as on some other areas of law, such as in tort law, employment law, and health care law. 3. The Neuroscience of Ethics Neuroscience, or more broadly the cognitive and neural sciences, have made significant inroads into understanding the neural basis of ethical thought and social behavior. In the last decades, these fields have begun to flesh out the neural machinery underlying human capacities for moral judgment, altruistic action, and the moral emotions (Liao, 2016). The field of social neuroscience, nonexistent two decades ago, is thriving, and our understanding of the circuitry, the neurochemistry, and the modulatory influences underlying some of our most complex and nuanced interpersonal behaviors is growing rapidly. Neuroethics recognizes that the heightened understanding of the biological bases of social and moral behaviors can itself have effects on how we conceptualize ourselves as social and moral agents, and foresees the importance of the interplay between our scientific conception of ourselves and our ethical views and theories (Roskies, 2002). The interplay and its effects provide reason to view the neuroscience of ethics (or more broadly, of sociality) as part of the domain of neuroethics. Perhaps the most well-known and controversial example of such an interplay marks the beginning of this kind of exploration. In 2001, Joshua Greene scanned people while they made a series of moral and nonmoral decisions in different scenarios, including dilemmas modeled on the philosophical “Trolley Problem” (Thomson, 1985). He noted systematic differences in the engagement of brain regions associated with moral processing in “personal” as opposed to “impersonal” moral dilemmas and hypothesized that emotional interference was behind the differential reaction times in judgments of permissibility in the footbridge case. In later work, he proposed a dual-process model of moral judgment, where relatively automatic emotion-based reactions and high-level cognitive control jointly determined responses to moral dilemmas, and he related his findings to philosophical moral theories (Greene, 2004, 2008). Most controversially, he suggested that there are reasons to be suspicious of our deontological judgments, and interpreted his work as lending credence to utilitarian theories (Greene 2013). Greene’s work is thus a clear example of how neuroscience might affect our ethical theorizing. Claims regarding the import of neuroscience studies for philosophical questions have sparked a heated debate in philosophy and beyond, and prompted critiques and replies from scholars both within and outside of philosophy (see, e.g. Berker, 2009; Kahane, 2011; Christensen, 2014). One effect of these exchanges is to highlight a problematic tendency for scientists and some philosophers to think they can draw normative conclusions from purely descriptive data; another is to illuminate the ways in which descriptive data might itself masquerade as normative (Roskies, forthcoming). Greene’s early studies demonstrated that neuroscience can be used in the service of examining extremely high-level behaviors and capacities, and have served as an inspiration for numerous other experiments investigating the neural basis of social and moral behavior and competences (May et al., forthcoming). Neuroethics has already turned its attention to phenomena such as altruism, empathy, well-being, and theory of mind, as well as to disorders such as autism and psychopathy. The relevant works range from imaging studies using a variety of imaging techniques, to manipulation of hormones and neurochemicals, to purely behavioral studies, and the use of virtual reality. In addition, interest in moral and social neuroscience has collided synergistically with the growth of neuroeconomics, which has flourished in large part independently. A recent bibliography has collected almost 400 references to works in the neuroscience of ethics since 2002 (Darragh et al., 2015). We can safely assume that many more advances will be made in the years to come, and that neuroethicists will be called upon to advance, evaluate, expound upon, or deflate claims for the purported ethical implications of our new knowledge. 4. Looking forward: New neurotechnologies The examples discussed above included pharmaceuticals that are already approved for use, existing brain imaging techniques and invasive neurotherapies. But practical neuroethical concerns, and some theoretical concerns, are highly dependent upon the details of technologies. For example, adaptive DBS or aDBS, which “closes the loop” by concurrently stimulating and recording from neural tissue, and automatically adjusting stimulation based on the state of the brain, raises more pressing and somewhat different concerns about agency and autonomy than does regular DBS (see, e.g. Goering et al., 2017). Several technologies are already on the horizon that are bound to raise some new neuroethical questions, or old questions in new guises. One of the most powerful new tools in the research neuroscientist’s arsenal is “optogenetics”, a method of transfecting brain cells with genetically engineered proteins that make the cell responsive to light of specific wavelengths (Diesseroth, 2011). The cells can then be activated or silenced by shining light upon them, allowing for cell-specific external control. Optogenetics has been successfully used in many model organisms, including rats, and work is underway to use optogenetics in monkeys. One may presume it is only a matter of time before it will be developed for use in humans. The method promises to provide precise control of specific neural populations and relatively noninvasive targeted treatments for diseases. It promises to raise the kind of neuroethical issues raised by many mechanisms that intervene on brain function: Questions of harm, of authenticity, and the prospect of brain cells being controlled by someone other than the agent himself (Gilbert, 2014; Adamczyk & Zawadzki, 2020). A second technique, CRISPR, allows powerful targeted gene editing. Although not strictly a neuroscientific technique, it can be used on neural cells to effect brain changes at the genetic level (Canli, 2015). Genetic engineering might make possible neural gene therapies and designer babies, making real consequences of the genetic revolution thus far only imagined. These and other technologies were not even imagined a few decades ago, and is likely that other future technologies will emerge which we cannot currently conceive of. If many neuroethical issues are closely tied to the capabilities of neurotechnologies, as I have argued, then we will likely be unlikely to anticipate future technologies in enough detail to predict the constellation of neuroethical issues that they may give rise to. Neuroethics will have to grow as neuroscience does, adapting to novel ethical and technological challenges. Bibliography Abbott, M., and S. Peck, 2017, “Emerging Ethical Issues Related to the Use of Brain-Computer Interfaces for Patients with Total Locked-in Syndrome,” Neuroethics, 10(2): 235–242. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9296-1 Adamczyk, A. and P. Zawadzki, 2020, “The Memory-Modifying Potential of Optogenetics and the Need for Neuroethics,” NanoEthics. doi:10.1007/s11569-020-00377-1 Aharoni, Eyal, Joshua Mallett, Gina M. Vincent, Carla L. Harenski, Vince D. Calhoun, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Michael S. Gazzaniga, and Kent A. Kiehl, 2014, “Predictive Accuracy in the Neuroprediction of Rearrest,” Social Neuroscience, 9(4): 332–36. doi:10.1080/17470919.2014.907201 Aharoni, E., G.Vincent, C. Harenski, V. Calhoun, W. Sinnott-Armstrong, M. Gazzaniga, and K. Kiehl, 2013, “Neuroprediction of Future Rearrest,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15): 6223–28. doi:10.1073/pnas.1219302110 Appel, J., 2010 [2011], “Beyond Fluoride: Pharmaceuticals, Drinking Water and the Public Health,” The Huffington Post, 18 March 2010, updated 25 May 2011; available online. Aydin, O., P. Aydin, and A. Arslan, 2019, “Development of Neuroimaging-Based Biomarkers in Psychiatry,” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 1192: 159–95. doi:10.1007/978-981-32-9721-0_9 Bai, Y., Y. Lin, and U. Ziemann, 2020, “Managing Disorders of Consciousness: The Role of Electroencephalography,” Journal of Neurology, doi:10.1007/s00415-020-10095-z Berker, S., 2009, “The Normative Insignificance of Neuroscience,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 37(4): 293–329. Birks, D. and T. Douglas (eds.), 2018, Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boire, Richard G., 2001, “On Cognitive Liberty”, The Journal of Cognitive Liberties, 2(1): 7–22 Braddock, Matthew, 2017, “‘Should We Treat Vegetative and Minimally Conscious Patients as Persons?’” Neuroethics, 10(2): 267–80. doi:10.1007/s12152-017-9309-8 Brembs, Björn, 2010, “Towards a Scientific Concept of Free Will as a Biological Trait: Spontaneous Actions and Decision-Making in Invertebrates,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2325 Brown, Timothy, 2015, “A Relational Take on Advisory Brain Implant Systems,” AJOB Neuroscience, 6(4): 46–47. doi:10.1080/21507740.2015.1094559 Bublitz, J., 2020, The Nascent Right to Psychological Integrity and Mental Self-Determination. In A. Von Arnauld, K. Von der Decken, and M. Susi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric, pp. 387–403. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108676106.031 Buckner, Randy L., Jessica R. Andrews-Hanna, and Daniel L. Schacter, 2008, “The Brain’s Default Network,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1): 1–38. doi:10.1196/annals.1440.011 Campbell, J., Z. Huang, J. Zhang, X. Wu, P. Qin, G. Northoff, G. Mashour, and A. Hudetz, 2020, “Pharmacologically Informed Machine Learning Approach for Identifying Pathological States of Unconsciousness via Resting-State FMRI,” NeuroImage, 206: 116316. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116316 Canli, Turhan, 2015, “Neurogenethics: An Emerging Discipline at the Intersection of Ethics, Neuroscience, and Genomics,” Applied & Translational Genomics, Neurogenomics: Coming of Age, 5: 18–22. doi:10.1016/j.atg.2015.05.002 Chalmers, D. J, 1995, “Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness,” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3): 200–219. Chekroud, Adam Mourad, Jim AC Everett, Holly Bridge, and Miles Hewstone, 2014, “A Review of Neuroimaging Studies of Race-Related Prejudice: Does Amygdala Response Reflect Threat?” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8: 179. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00179 Clark, Andy, 2004, Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence, first edition, New York: Oxford University Press. Darragh, Martina, Liana Buniak, and James Giordano, 2015, “A Four-Part Working Bibliography of Neuroethics: Part 2 – Neuroscientific Studies of Morality and Ethics,” Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine (PEHM), 10. doi:10.1186/s13010-015-0022-0 Deisseroth, K, 2010, “Optogenetics,” Nature Methods, 8: 26–29. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.f.324 Delfin, Carl, Hedvig Krona, Peter Andiné, Erik Ryding, Märta Wallinius, and Björn Hofvander, 2019, “Prediction of Recidivism in a Long-Term Follow-up of Forensic Psychiatric Patients: Incremental Effects of Neuroimaging Data,” PLoS ONE, 14(5). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217127 Douglas, Thomas, 2019, “Enhancement and Desert,” Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 18(1): 3–22. doi:10.1177/1470594X18810439 –––, 2008,“Moral Enhancement,” Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25(3): 228–45. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00412.x Dresler, Martin, Anders Sandberg, Christoph Bublitz, Kathrin Ohla, Carlos Trenado, Aleksandra Mroczko-Wąsowicz, Simone Kühn, and Dimitris Repantis, 2019, “Hacking the Brain: Dimensions of Cognitive Enhancement,” ACS Chemical Neuroscience 10(3): 1137–48. doi:10.1021/acschemneuro.8b00571 Dubljević, Veljko, and Eric Racine, 2017, “Moral Enhancement Meets Normative and Empirical Reality: Assessing the Practical Feasibility of Moral Enhancement Neurotechnologies,” Bioethics, 31(5): 338–48. doi:10.1111/bioe.12355 Erler, Alexandre, 2011,“Does Memory Modification Threaten Our Authenticity?” Neuroethics, 4(3): 235–49. doi:10.1007/s12152-010-9090-4 Farah, Martha J. (ed.), 2010, Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings, first Edition, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Farah, Martha J., 2017, “The Neuroscience of Socioeconomic Status: Correlates, Causes, and Consequences,” Neuron, 96(1): 56–71. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.08.034 Farah, Martha J., J. Benjamin Hutchinson, Elizabeth A. Phelps, and Anthony D. Wagner, 2014, “Functional MRI-Based Lie Detection: Scientific and Societal Challenges,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(2): 123–31. doi:10.1038/nrn3665 Fischer, David, and Robert D. Truog, 2017, “The Problems with Fixating on Consciousness in Disorders of Consciousness,” American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience, 8(3): 135–40. Gilbert, Frederic, 2015, “A Threat to Autonomy? The Intrusion of Predictive Brain Implants,” AJOB Neuroscience, 6(4): 4–11. doi:10.1080/21507740.2015.1076087 Goering, Sara, Eran Klein, Darin D. Dougherty, and Alik S. Widge, 2017, “Staying in the Loop: Relational Agency and Identity in Next-Generation DBS for Psychiatry,” AJOB Neuroscience, 8(2): 59–70. doi:10.1080/21507740.2017.1320320 Greely, Henry, Barbara Sahakian, John Harris, Ronald C. Kessler, Michael Gazzaniga, Philip Campbell, and Martha J. Farah, 2008,“Towards Responsible Use of Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs by the Healthy,” Nature, 456(7223): 702–5. doi:10.1038/456702a Greene, Joshua D., and Joseph M. Paxton, 2009, “Patterns of Neural Activity Associated with Honest and Dishonest Moral Decisions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(30): 12506–11. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900152106 Greene, Joshua D., Leigh E. Nystrom, Andrew D. Engell, John M. Darley, and Jonathan D. Cohen, 2004, “The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment,” Neuron, 44(2): 389–400. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 Greene, Joshua D., R. Brian Sommerville, Leigh E. Nystrom, John M. Darley, and Jonathan D. Cohen, 2001, “An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment,” Science, 293(5537): 2105–8. doi:10.1126/science.1062872 Greene, Joshua D., Sylvia A. Morelli, Kelly Lowenberg, Leigh E. Nystrom, and Jonathan D. Cohen, 2008, “Cognitive Load Selectively Interferes with Utilitarian Moral Judgment,” Cognition, 107(3): 1144–54. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004 Greene, Joshua, 2013, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them, New York: Penguin Press. Hsu, Chun-Wei, Chiara Begliomini, Tommaso Dall’Acqua, and Giorgio Ganis, 2019, “The Effect of Mental Countermeasures on Neuroimaging-Based Concealed Information Tests,” Human Brain Mapping, 40(10): 2899–2916. doi:10.1002/hbm.24567 Husain, Masud, and Mitul A. Mehta, 2011, “Cognitive Enhancement by Drugs in Health and Disease,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1): 28–36. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.11.002 Ienca, Marcello, and Roberto Andorno, 2017, “Towards New Human Rights in the Age of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology,” Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13(1): 5. doi:10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1 Ilieva, Irena, Joseph Boland, and Martha J. Farah, 2013, “Objective and Subjective Cognitive Enhancing Effects of Mixed Amphetamine Salts in Healthy People,” Neuropharmacology, Cognitive Enhancers: molecules, mechanisms and minds 22nd Neuropharmacology Conference: Cognitive Enhancers, 64 (January): 496–505. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.07.021 Illes, Judy, and Barbara J. Sahakian, 2011, Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Illes, Judy, Matthew P. Kirschen, and John D. E. Gabrieli, 2003, “From Neuroimaging to Neuroethics,” Nature Neuroscience, 6(3): 205–205. doi:10.1038/nn0303–205 Illes, Judy, Matthew P. Kirschen, Emmeline Edwards, L R. Stanford, Peter Bandettini, Mildred K. Cho, Paul J. Ford, et al., 2006, “Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research,” Science, 311(5762): 783–84. doi:10.1126/science.1124665 Illes, Judy, 2006, Neuroethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice, and Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jebari, Karim, 2013, “Brain Machine Interface and Human Enhancement – An Ethical Review,” Neuroethics, 6(3): 617–25. doi:10.1007/s12152-012-9176-2 Jecker, Nancy S., and Andrew L. Ko, 2017, “Is That the Same Person? Case Studies in Neurosurgery,” AJOB Neuroscience, 8(3): 160–70. doi:10.1080/21507740.2017.1366578 Johnson, L. Syd M., Andrew Fenton, and Adam Shriver (eds.), 2020, Neuroethics and Nonhuman Animals: Advances in Neuroethics, Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31011-0 Jones, Owen D., Jeffrey D. Schall, and Francis X. Shen, 2014, Law & Neuroscience, 1st edition. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Jones, Owen D., Joshua Buckholtz, Jeffrey D. Schall, and Rene Marois, 2009, Brain Imaging for Legal Thinkers: A Guide for the Perplexed, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1563612. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Kahane, Guy and Julian Savulescu, 2009, “Brain damage and the moral significance of consciousness,” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 34(1):6–26. Kahane, Guy, Katja Wiech, Nicholas Shackel, Miguel Farias, Julian Savulescu, and Irene Tracey, 2011, “The Neural Basis of Intuitive and Counterintuitive Moral Judgment,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, March, nsr005. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr005 Kahane, Guy, 2011, “Mastery Without Mystery: Why There Is No Promethean Sin in Enhancement,” Journal of Applied Philosophy, 28(4): 355–68. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2011.00543.x Kass, Leon, 2003, “Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Human Improvement,” President’s Council on Bioethics, Washington, DC, 16. Klaming, Larry and Pim Haselager, 2013, “Did My Brain Implant Make Me Do It? Questions Raised by DBS Regarding Psychological Continuity, Responsibility for Action and Mental Competence,” Neuroethics, 6: 527–39. Klein, Eran, Tim Brown, Matthew Sample, Anjali R. Truitt, and Sara Goering, 2015, “Engineering the Brain: Ethical Issues and the Introduction of Neural Devices,” The Hastings Center Report, 45(6): 26–35. doi:10.1002/hast.515 Kraemer, Felicitas, 2013, “Me, Myself and My Brain Implant: Deep Brain Stimulation Raises Questions of Personal Authenticity and Alienation,” Neuroethics, 6: 483–97. Kraemer, Felicitas, 2013, “Authenticity or Autonomy? When Deep Brain Stimulation Causes a Dilemma,” Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(12): 757–60. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100427 Lavazza, Andrea, 2018, “Freedom of Thought and Mental Integrity: The Moral Requirements for Any Neural Prosthesis,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.00082 Lázaro-Muñoz, Gabriel, Amy L. McGuire, and Wayne K. Goodman, 2017, “Should We Be Concerned About Preserving Agency and Personal Identity in Patients With Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Systems?” AJOB Neuroscience, 8 (2): 73–75. doi:10.1080/21507740.2017.1320337 Leentjens A.F., Visser-Vandewalle V., Temel Y., Verhey F.R., 2004, “Manipulation of mental competence: An ethical problem in case of electrical stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus for severe Parkinson’s disease,” Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 148(28): 1394 – 98. Liao, S. Matthew. Moral Brains: The Neuroscience of Morality, first edition, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016. Libet, Benjamin, Curtis A. Gleason, Elwood W. Wright, and Dennis K. Pearl, 1983, “Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (readiness-Potential),” Brain, 106(3): 623–42. doi:10.1093/brain/106.3.623 Lin, Patrick, and Fritz Allhoff, 2008, “Against Unrestricted Human Enhancement,” Journal of Evolution & Technology, 18(1): 35–41. Liu, Xiaonan, Kewei Chen, Teresa Wu, David Weidman, Fleming Lure, and Jing Li, 2018, “Use of Multimodality Imaging and Artificial Intelligence for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Early Stages of Alzheimer’s Disease,” Translational Research: The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 194: 56–67. doi:10.1016/j.trsl.2018.01.001 Mackenzie, Catriona, and Mary Walker, 2015, “Neurotechnologies, Personal Identity, and the Ethics of Authenticity,” in Handbook of Neuroethics, edited by Jens Clausen and Neil Levy, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 373–92, doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_10 Mantione, Mariska, Martijn Figee, and Damiaan Denys, 2014, “A case of musical preference for Johnny Cash following deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens,” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8: 152. Marcus, Steven J. (ed.), 2002, Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, first edition, New York: Dana Press. Mattay, Venkata S., Joseph H. Callicott, Alessandro Bertolino, Ian Heaton, Joseph A. Frank, Richard Coppola, Karen F. Berman, Terry E. Goldberg, and Daniel R. Weinberger, 2000, “Effects of Dextroamphetamine on Cognitive Performance and Cortical Activation,” NeuroImage, 12(3): 268–75. doi:10.1006/nimg.2000.0610 May, Joshua, Clifford Ian Workman, Hyemin Han, and Julia Haas, (forthcoming), “The Neuroscience of Moral Judgment: Empirical and Philosophical Developments,” Preprint. PsyArXiv, May 1, 2020. doi:10.31234/osf.io/89jcx Molenberghs, Pascal, and Winnifred R. Louis, 2018, “Insights From FMRI Studies Into Ingroup Bias,” Frontiers in Psychology, 9, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01868 Monti, Martin M., Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse, Martin R. Coleman, Melanie Boly, John D. Pickard, Luaba Tshibanda, Adrian M. Owen, and Steven Laureys, 2010, “Willful Modulation of Brain Activity in Disorders of Consciousness,” New England Journal of Medicine, 362(7): 579–89. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0905370 Morse, Stephen J., and Adina L. Roskies (eds.), 2013, A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Olson, Eric T., 1999, The Human Animal: Personal Identity without Psychology, New York: Oxford University Press. Owen. Adrian M., 2013, “Detecting Consciousness: A Unique Role for Neuroimaging,” Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1): 109–33. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143729 Owen, Adrian M., Martin R. Coleman, Melanie Boly, Matthew H. Davis, Steven Laureys, and John D. Pickard, 2006, “Detecting Awareness in the Vegetative State,” Science, 313(5792): 1402–1402. doi:10.1126/science.1130197 Parens, Erik, 2005, “Authenticity and Ambivalence: Toward Understanding the Enhancement Debate,” The Hastings Center Report, 35(3): 34–41. doi:10.2307/3528804 Parfit, Derek, 1984, Reasons and Persons, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pascalev, Assya, Mario Pascalev, and James Giordano, 2016, “Head Transplants, Personal Identity and Neuroethics,” Neuroethics, 9(1) : 15–22. doi:10.1007/s12152-015-9245-4 Peterson, Andrew, Adrian M. Owen, and Jason Karlawish, 2020, “Alive Inside,” Bioethics, 34(3): 295–305. doi:10.1111/bioe.12678 Poldrack, Russell A., John Monahan, Peter B. Imrey, Valerie Reyna, Marcus Raichle, David Faigman, and Joshua W. Buckholtz, 2018, “Predicting Violent Behavior: What Can Neuroscience Add?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2): 111–23. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.003 Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. “Gray Matters, Vol. 2” https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/node/4716.html. Pugh, Jonathan, Hannah Maslen, and Julian Savalescu, 2017, “Deep Brain Stimulation, Authenticity and Value,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 26(4): 640–57. doi:10.1017/S0963180117000147 Racine, Eric, Ofek Bar-Ilan, and Judy Illes, 2006, “Brain Imaging: A decade of coverage in the print media,” Science Communication, 28(1): 122–42. doi:10.1177/1075547006291990 Racine, Eric, 2015, “Neuroscience, Neuroethics, and the Media,” in Handbook of Neuroethics, Jens Clausen and Neil Levy (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 1465–71, doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_82 Racine, Eric, 2010, Pragmatic Neuroethics: Improving Treatment and Understanding of the Mind-Brain, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Roskies, Adina, 2002, “Neuroethics for the New Millenium,” Neuron, 35(1): 21–23. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00763-8 –––, 2007, “Are Neuroimages like Photographs of the Brain?” Philosophy of Science, 74: 860–72. –––, 2006, “Neuroscientific Challenges to Free Will and Responsibility,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(9): 419–23. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.07.011 –––, 2015, “Agency and intervention,” Phil. Trans, R. Soc. B, 370(1677): 20140215. doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0215 –––, 2015. “Mind Reading, Lie Detection, and Privacy,” in Handbook of Neuroethics, Jens Clausen and Neil Levy (eds.), Springer Netherlands, pp. 679–95 –––, 2020, “Mindreading and Privacy,” The New Cognitive Neurosciences, 6th Edition, Poeppel, D., Mangun, G.R. and Gazzaniga, M.S. (eds.). Cambridge, CA: MIT Press, pp. 1049–57. –––, forthcoming. “The limits of neuroscience for ethics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology, Vargas and Doris (eds.). Sahakian, Barbara, and Sharon Morein-Zamir, 2007, “Professor’s Little Helper,” Nature, 450(7173): 1157–59. doi:10.1038/4501157a Sandel, Michael, 2002,“What’s Wrong with Enhancement,” President’s Council on Bioethics, Washington, DC, 12. Savulescu, Julian, and Ingmar Persson, 2012, “Moral Enhancement, Freedom and the God Machine,” The Monist , 95(3): 399–421. Schechtman, Marya, 2014, Staying Alive: Personal Identity, Practical Concerns, and the Unity of a Life, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schermer, Maartje, 2008, “Enhancements, Easy Shortcuts, and the Richness of Human Activities,” Bioethics, 22(7): 355–63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00657.x Schweitzer, N. J., Michael J. Saks, Emily R. Murphy, Adina L. Roskies, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Lyn M. Gaudet, 2011, “Neuroimages as Evidence in a Mens Rea Defense: No Impact,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(3): 357–93. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023581 Selgelid, Michael J., 2007. “An Argument Against Arguments for Enhancement,” Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 1(1). Sententia, Wrye, 2013, “Freedom by Design”, In The Transhumanist Reader, x More and Natasha Vita-More (eds.), John Wiley & Sons, pp. 355–60. doi:10.1002/9781118555927.ch34 Shen, Francis, 2013, “Neuroscience, Mental Privacy, and the Law,,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 36. Shira Knafo and César Venero, (eds.), 2015, Cognitive Enhancement , San Diego: Academic Press, doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-417042-1.00001-2 Skorburg, Joshua August, and Walter Sinnott Armstrong, 2020 “Some Ethics of Deep Brain Stimulation,” in Global Mental Health and Neuroethics, Dan Stein and Ilina Singh (eds.), Academic Press, pp. 117–32. Soon, Chun Siong, Marcel Brass, Hans-Jochen Heinze, and John-Dylan Haynes, 2008, “Unconscious Determinants of Free Decisions in the Human Brain,” Nature Neuroscience, 11(5): 543–45. doi:10.1038/nn.2112 Spence, Charles, 2020, “On the Ethics of Neuromarketing and Sensory Marketing,” In Organizational Neuroethics: Reflections on the Contributions of Neuroscience to Management Theories and Business Practices, Joé T. Martineau and Eric Racine (eds.), Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 9–29. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-27177-0_3 Spielberg, Steven (director), 2002, Film: Minority Report. Stanton, Steven J., Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Scott A. Huettel, 2017, “Neuromarketing: Ethical Implications of Its Use and Potential Misuse,” Journal of Business Ethics, 144(4): 799–81. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3059-0 Stein, Dan, and Ilina Singh (eds.), 2020, Global Mental Health and Neuroethics, London: Academic Press. Strawson, Galen, 2004, “Against Narrativity,” Ratio, 17(4): 428–52. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9329.2004.00264.x Thomson, Judith Jarvis, 1985, “The Trolley Problem,” The Yale Law Journal, 94(6): 1395–1415. doi:10.2307/796133 United States v. Semrau, No. 11–5396 (6th Cir. 2012). Urban, Kimberly R., and Wen-Jun Gao, 2014, “Performance Enhancement at the Cost of Potential Brain Plasticity: Neural Ramifications of Nootropic Drugs in the Healthy Developing Brain,” Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8 May: 38. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00038 Valizadeh, Seyed Abolfazl, Franziskus Liem, Susan Mérillat, Jürgen Hänggi, and Lutz Jäncke, 2018, “Identification of Individual Subjects on the Basis of Their Brain Anatomical Features,” Scientific Reports , 8(1): 5611. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-23696-6 Vincent, Nicole A. (ed.), 2013, Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility, first edition, New York: Oxford University Press. Vohs, Kathleen D., and Jonathan W. Schooler, 2008, “The Value of Believing in Free Will Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating,” Psychological Science, 19(1): 49–54. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02045.x Walker, Mary Jean, and Catriona Mackenzie, 2020, “Neurotechnologies, Relational Autonomy, and Authenticity,” IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics. doi:10.3138/ijfab.13.1.06 Warren, Samuel D., and Louis D. Brandeis, 1890, “Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, 4: 193. Waters, Theodore E. A., and Robyn Fivush, 2014, “Relations Between Narrative Coherence, Identity, and Psychological Well-Being in Emerging Adulthood,” Journal of Personality, 83(4): 441–451. doi:10.1111/jopy.12120 Weisberg, Deena Skolnick, Frank C. Keil, Joshua Goodstein, Elizabeth Rawson, and Jeremy R. Gray, 2008, “The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3): 470–77. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20040 Zuk, Peter, Laura Torgerson, Demetrio Sierra-Mercado, and Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, 2018, “Neuroethics of Neuromodulation: An Update,” Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering, 8: 45–50. doi:10.1016/j.cobme.2018.10.003 Academic Tools sep man icon How to cite this entry. sep man icon Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society. inpho icon Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). phil papers icon Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers, with links to its database. Other Internet Resources The Hastings Center page on Enhancement Center for Cognitive Liberty Center for Neuroscience and Society, University of Pennsylvania International Neuroethics Society The Neuroethics Blog, hosted by the Center for Ethics, Neuroethics Program at Emory University The Ethics of Human Enhancement (Index to all Posts), Philosophical Disquisitions blog Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethics Gray Matters: Integrative Approaches for Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society Gray Matters: Topics at the Intersection of Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society Neuroethics bibliography from University of Mainz, maintained until 2016. Related Entries autonomy: in moral and political philosophy | autonomy: personal | bias, implicit | decision-making capacity | ethics, biomedical: clinical research | ethics, biomedical: justice, inequality, and health | ethics, biomedical: privacy and medicine | free will | health | human enhancement | informed consent | moral responsibility | personal identity | personal identity: and ethics Acknowledgments The author would like to acknowledge the research assistance of Yaning Chen for this project. Copyright © 2021 by Adina Roskies <adina.roskies@dartmouth.edu> Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative. Please Read How You Can Help Keep the Encyclopedia Free Browse Table of Contents What's New Random Entry Chronological Archives About Editorial Information About the SEP Editorial Board How to Cite the SEP Special Characters Advanced Tools Contact Support SEP Support the SEP PDFs for SEP Friends Make a Donation SEPIA for Libraries Mirror Sites View this site from another server: USA (Main Site) Philosophy, Stanford University The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2021 by The Metaphysics Research Lab, Department of Philosophy, Stanford University Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054 Author Skull & Bones - the NWO core group The Skull & Bones Flying Corps May be an image of 9 people and people smiling · Reply · 2y · Edited Skull & Bones - the NWO core group added 12 new photos to the album: Skull & Bones ephemera. Junmeegre o20si, fr2019 · Skull & Bones - the NWO core group added 54 new photos to the album: Bohemian Grove — at Gurneville, Ca. Junmeegre o20si, fr2019 · Playground of the 1% Skull & Bones - the NWO core group added 14 new photos to the album: Skull & Bones Class Pictures — at Yale University. Junmeegre o20si, fr2019 · Skull & Bones - the NWO core group updated their cover photo. itgJSoounndieo 2e0, ie2d019h · Skull & Bones - the NWO core group itgJSoounndieo 2e0, ie2d019h · If the members of Skull & Bones were to select a Hall of Fame from among their own elite ranks, some of the people whose names would almost certainly appear at the top of the list would be: * Alphonso Taft, a founding member of the Order who served as the Secretary of War under President Rutherford B. Hayes (1876-1880). * William Russell, a founding member of the Order, Cousin to Sam Russell of Russell & Company, the worlds largest Opium Dealers.… See More Skull & Bones - the NWO core group updated their cover photo. JuntaSrpeeof 2n0,etg 2odr0e19 · Skull & Bones - the NWO core group updated their profile picture. JuntaSrpeeof 2n0,etg 2odr0e19 · No photo description available. ********************************* Christine Grady From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Christine Grady Christine Grady NIH.jpg Grady in 2018 Born Livingston, New Jersey, U.S. Education Georgetown University (BS, PhD) Boston College (MSN) Spouse(s) Anthony Fauci (m. 1985) Children 3 Awards National Institutes of Health CEO Award Scientific career Fields Bioethics Institutions National Institutes of Health Clinical Center Christine Grady is an American nurse and bioethicist who serves as the head of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.[1] Contents 1 Early life and education 2 Career 3 Personal life 4 References 5 Further reading 6 External links Early life and education Grady was born and raised in Livingston, New Jersey.[2] Her father, John H. Grady Jr., was a Yale University graduate and United States Navy veteran who served as the mayor of Livingston. Her mother, Barbara, was an assistant dean at Seton Hall University School of Law.[3] Grady graduated from Livingston High School, after which she earned a BS in nursing and biology from Georgetown University in 1974, a Master of Science in Nursing from Boston College in 1978, and a PhD in philosophy from Georgetown University in 1993.[2] Career Grady has worked in nursing, clinical research, and clinical care, with a specialization in HIV.[1] She was a Commissioner on the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues from 2010 and 2017.[1] Grady is a member of the National Academy of Medicine, a senior fellow at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, and a fellow of The Hastings Center and American Academy of Nursing.[1] She received the National Institutes of Health CEO Award in 2017 and the Director's Award from the same organization in 2015 and 2017. Personal life Grady is married to Anthony Fauci, an American immunologist and head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health.[4][5] They have three daughters.[4] References "Meet our doctors: Christine Grady, MSN, PhD". National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. Retrieved March 13, 2020. Schneider J (April 3, 2020). "Another reason to love Dr. Fauci: His wife is from New Jersey". nj.com. Retrieved April 16, 2020. "Obituary: John H. Grady Jr". The Star-Ledger. June 2, 2013. Retrieved August 7, 2020 – via legacy,com. Ungar DNS (Summer 2002). "Features". Holy Cross Magazine. College of the Holy Cross. 36 (3). Kintisch E (April 8, 2010). "White House bioethicists named". Science magazine. Retrieved March 20, 2020. Further reading Schaub E (June 28, 2013). "Member Spotlight: Christine Grady". The blog of the 2009–2017 Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Georgetown University. "In their own words: Christine Grady, R.N., Ph.D". NIH. January 30, 1997. Archived from the original on December 20, 2019. "Transcript: Interview with Dr. Christine Grady". NIH. January 30, 1997. Archived from the original on December 20, 2019. External links Appearances on C-SPAN Authority control Edit this at Wikidata ORCID 1 Categories: Living peopleAmerican medical researchersBoston College alumniGeorgetown University alumniHIV/AIDS researchersNational Institutes of Health peopleAmerican women nursesFellows of the American Academy of NursingMembers of the National Academy of MedicineBioethicists20th-century American scientists21st-century American scientists20th-century American women scientists21st-century American women scientistsNursing researchersLivingston High School (New Jersey) alumniPeople from Livingston, New JerseyAmerican nursesScientists from New Jersey Navigation menu Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in ArticleTalk ReadView sourceView history Search Search Wikipedia Main page Contents Current events Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Donate Contribute Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file Tools What links here Related changes Special pages Permanent link Page information Cite this page Wikidata item Print/export Download as PDF Printable version Languages العربية Français Edit links This page was last edited on 24 August 2021, at 14:35 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaMobile viewDevelopersStatisticsCookie statement<br> *************************************** Skull & Bones - the NWO core group JuSinndnSne 20o, 2h0refd19 · Skull and Bones Members of the Order of Skull and Bones The Skull and Bones is a fraternal order with origins in Germany and the Bavarian Illuminati and brought to America in 1833 by William Russell. Every year 15 new Bonesmen are selected or "tapped" by the graduating class of Bonesmen at Yale. From this elite group we have had Presidents, Chief Justices, Attorney Generals, Ambassadors, Senators, Congressmen and Leaders in Manufacturing, Publishing, Banking and Stock markets just name a few. If you come to understand the interwoven ties of the Skull and Bones you will understand much of the New World Orders inner workings. I will be adding biographical information to this list, along with new Bonesmen as it becomes available. 1833 Noah Bishop 1833 Samuel Henshaw Bates 1833 Alphonso Taft 1833 John Crump 1833 William Huntington Russell 1833 Robert Robertson 1833 Phineas Timothy Miller 1833 Frederick Ellsworth Mather 1833 Samuel Davies Marshall 1833 A. Hook Lewis 1833 Rufus Erastus Hart 1833 Benjamin Franklin Davis 1833 George Ingersoll Wood ---- 1834 John Hubbard Tweedy 1834 George Gilman Spencer 1834 Churchill Coffing 1834 George Anson Oliver Beaumont 1834 Eleazar Kingsbury Foster 1834 Alexander Blucher Gordon 1834 Alfred Emerson 1834 Daniel Emerson Hall 1834 William Shedden Burr 1834 John Wallace Houston 1834 John Newton Kendall 1834 Henry Coit Kingsley 1834 James Neilsen Lea 1834 Samuel Gray Southmayd 1834 William Henry Washington ---- 1835 Hugh Walsh 1835 Alfred Stubbs 1835 Caleb Strong 1835 Thomas Benedict Sturges 1835 Thomas Anthony Thacher 1835 Hugh White Shelly 1835 John Forman Seymour 1835 John Edward Seeley 1835 John Chandler Rafferty 1835 Ethelbert Smith Mills 1835 William MacLellan 1835 Frank Johnston 1835 Oran Reed Howard 1835 John Davis ---- 1836 John Morton Swift 1836 John Odman Hurd 1836 Henry Reeder Harris 1836 James Bulloch Dunwody 1836 Henry Champion Deming 1836 Thomas Darling 1836 Henry Hatch Dent 1836 James Mc Alpin Wray 1836 George Palmer Tyler 1836 Frederick Roger Sherman 1836 William Sherman Rowland 1836 Henry Kirk Preston 1836 William Seward Pierson 1836 Joseph Howard Marvin 1836 George Lockwood Martin ---- 1837 Stephen Yerkes 1837 Robert Underwood Hyatt 1837 Walter Tilden Hatch 1837 William Maxwell Evarts 1837 Thomas Mills Day 1837 William Coit 1837 Edwin Osgood Carter 1837 Henry Williams 1837 Morrison Remick Waite 1837 Benjamin Silliman 1837 William Smith Scarborough 1837 Abel Bellows Robeson 1837 Chester Smith Lyman 1837 William Fabian Law ---- 1838 Rev. Joseph Parrish Thompson 1838 Thomas Grosvenor Talcott 1838 John Knowlton Barlett 1838 Charles James Lynde 1838 William Lyon Law 1838 Thomas Marshall Key 1838 Seaborn Augustus Jones 1838 William Stuart Fleming 1838 Albert Dodd 1838 William Frierson Cooper 1838 Thomas Scott Williams 1838 Joseph Bradley Varnum 1838 Ebenezer Spalding 1838 Carlos Fernando Ribeiro 1838 Eugene Lamb Rich ---- 1839 William Henry Chandler 1839 Thomas Bradish Biddle 1839 John Sheldon Beach 1839 Charles Janeway Stille 1839 Endress Faulkner 1839 Charles St. John Eldridge 1839 Silas Flournoy Trotter 1839 James Osborne Putnam 1839 William Herbert Norris 1839 Henry Rootes Jackson 1839 Richard Dudley Hubbard 1839 William Perkins Williams 1839 John Marsh Watson 1839 George Washington ---- 1840 William Chauvenet 1840 Daniel March 1840 James Riley Jesup 1840 Ward Woodridge Hudson 1840 Joseph Gibson Hoyle 1840 James Mason Hoppin 1840 Curtis Field Burnham 1840 Theodore Hudson Benedict 1840 Christopher James Beirne 1840 Stuart Wilkins Fisk 1840 John Perkins 1840 Henry McCall 1840 William Perkins 1840 George Richards 1840 William Henry Tiffany ---- 1841 David Irvine Field 1841 William Tappan Eustis 1841 Joseph Emerson 1841 Pompeo Ascenco De Sa 1841 William Taylor Sullivan Barry 1841 Hezekiah Sturges 1841 Henry Hunter Raymond 1841 Donald Grant Mitchell 1841 Edmund Leaf 1841 Charles Philip Helfenstein 1841 Augustus Canfield Gillette 1841 William Law Learned 1841 Richard Stobbs Willis 1841 Thomas C. Yarnall 1841 William Grey Woolfolk ---- 1842 William Sidney Huggins 1842 Nathaniel Shaw Perkins 1842 Joseph Augustine Benton 1842 Joseph Venen Brown 1842 Albert Barnes Buttles 1842 Newton Edwards 1842 William Postell Gready 1842 Jacob Halsey 1842 William Davison Henen 1842 Henry Lewis 1842 Alexander Mac Whorter 1842 Albert Matthews 1842 Francis William Miller 1842 John Andrew Peters 1842 Julius Howard Pratt ---- 1843 William Lyon Chambers 1843 John Abram Lent 1843 Henry Stevens 1843 Lucius Franklin Robinson 1843 Julius Adolphus Baratte 1843 Benjamin Tucker Eames 1843 Charles Nicholas Gachel 1843 Christopher Grammar 1843 Roswell Hart 1843 Gideon Granger 1843 Daniel William Havens 1843 Alfred Lambert 1843 John Hunter Robb 1843 William Griswold Lane 1843 Thomas Hudson Moody ---- 1844 Richard Dobbs Spaight Bell 1844 Samuel Augustus Fisk 1844 William Few Smith 1844 William Horace Elliot 1844 Alexander Chalmers Lanier 1844 William Barrett Washburn 1844 Joseph Burbeen Walker 1844 James Madison Robb 1844 John Henry Felder 1844 Orris Sanford Ferry 1844 Thaddeus Foote 1844 Edward Andrews Breed 1844 Joseph Lovell 1844 John Walcott Wetherell 1844 A. Wilson ---- 1845 James Noaille Brickell 1845 Leonard Eugene Wales 1845 Constantine Canaris Esty 1845 Richard Taylor 1845 Alvan Pinney Hyde 1845 Lemuel Parker Connor 1845 William Gustine Connor 1845 Isaac La Fayette Cushman 1845 James Gardner Gould 1845 John Wheeler Harding 1845 George Canning Hill 1845 Thomas Kennedy 1845 Orrick Metcalfe 1845 Sereno Dwight Nickerson 1845 Robert Rankin ---- 1846 David Hawley 1846 William Spencer Eakin 1846 Charles Hooper Trask 1846 Josiah Savage 1846 Joseph Willes Backus 1846 Henry Baldwin Harrison 1846 Henry Thornton Steele 1846 Joseph Stiles 1846 John Ball Brisrin 1846 Stephen Wright Kellogg 1846 Stephen Duncan Linton 1846 David Humphrey Mulford 1846 Rensselaer Russell Nelson 1846 William Bessell Nevins 1846 Elihu Phinney ---- 1847 William Hallock Hayden 1847 Alfred Mills 1847 Roger Sherman Baldwin 1847 James Fitch 1847 Thomas Levingston Bayne 1847 John Coon 1847 Ducald Cameron Haight 1847 P. Fredinand Mc Lallen 1847 William Eves Moore 1847 John Munn 1847 John Hull Olmstead 1847 Charles Frederick Sanford 1847 John Donnell Smith 1847 John Wilson ---- 1848 Samuel Emerson 1848 Samuel Alexander Strikler 1848 Benham Daniel Young 1848 Henry Martin Colton 1848 Charles Condit 1848 Dwight Foster 1848 Henry Taylor Blake 1848 Henry Hitchcock 1848 William Kinne 1848 Richard Smith Mesick 1848 Thomas Cicero Pinckard 1848 George White 1848 Giles Buckingham Wilcox ---- 1849 William Barker Clarke 1849 Francis Miles Finch 1849 Joseph Hurlbut 1849 Augustus Brandegee 1849 Charles Green Came 1849 James Campbell 1849 Timothy Dwight 1849 Edward Clement Hough 1849 Jacob Brown Kirby 1849 Henry Laurens Metcalfe 1849 James Browning Miles 1849 Edward Dafydd Morris 1849 Walker Richardson 1849 John Rockwell ---- 1850 Joseph Forward Foote 1850 Henry Chase 1850 Cordial Storrs 1850 Newton Spaulding Manross 1850 Willis Strong Colton 1850 Albert Pierson Condit 1850 Edward Warren Bentley 1850 Robert Bliss 1850 William Root Bliss 1850 Clinton Camp 1850 George Sherman Converse 1850 Henry Martyn Dechert 1850 William Ludden 1850 Ellis Henry Roberts 1850 Oswald Langdon Woodford ---- 1851 William De Forest Manice 1851 Evan Wilhelm Evans 1851 James Gardiner Vose 1851 John Milton Slade 1851 Horatio Walsh Brinsmade 1851 Henry DeWitt? Beman 1851 Rufus Cowles Crampton 1851 William Buck Dana 1851 Richard Jacobs Haldeman 1851 Albert Hebard 1851 Robbins Little 1851 Henry Dorrance Wells 1851 Henry Dyer White 1851 Emerson Cogswell Whitney ---- 1852 George Griswold Sill 1852 Charles Downs Helmer 1852 Vincent Marmaduke 1852 William Stanley 1852 Albert Bigelow 1852 Henry Clay Blakeslee 1852 Charles Miller Bliss 1852 Jacob Cooper 1852 William Wallace Crapo 1852 Daniel Coit Gilman 1852 Edward Houghton 1852 William Preston Johnston 1852 Henry Mc Cormick 1852 William Baldwin Ross 1852 George Blagden Safford ---- 1853 George William Baldwin 1853 Thomas Mckinney Jack 1853 Thomas Frederick Davies 1853 Henry Harper Babcock 1853 George Asbury Johnson 1853 Samuel Mills Capron 1853 Joshua Coit 1853 William Henry Gleason 1853 Alfred Growel 1853 Albert Farley Heard 1853 Albert Emmett Kent 1853 Andrew Dickerson White 1853 James Morris Whiton 1853 Andrew Jackson Willard ---- 1854 Charles Atwood White 1854 Charles Thomas Purnell 1854 Edward Wilberforce Lambert 1854 William Henry Fenn 1854 Samuel Curtis Blackman 1854 Carroll Cutler 1854 Thomas Denny 1854 John Worthington Hooker 1854 James Kittredge Lombard 1854 George Deforest Lord 1854 Luzon Morris 1854 Lemuel Stoughton Potwin 1854 Alexander Stevenson Twombly 1854 James Jeremiah Wedsworth 1854 Edward Payson Whitney ---- 1855 Charles Frederick Johnson 1855 John Albert Granger 1855 Henry Albert Yardley 1855 Stanley Woodward 1855 Andrew Jackson Spring 1855 Nathaniel Willis Bumstead 1855 William Henry Lienow Barnes 1855 Linus Mason Child 1855 Henry Nitche Cobb 1855 George Alvar Killredge 1855 George Lampson 1855 Elisha Mulford 1855 Charles Mellen Tyler 1855 William Wheeler ---- 1856 Edward Payson Nettleton 1856 Louis Christopher Fischer 1856 Stephen Condit 1856 John Mason Brown 1856 George Payson Barker 1856 George Chester Robinson 1856 Chauncey Mitchell Depew 1856 Emmet Alexander Eakin 1856 Matthias Hollenback Arnot 1856 William Harvey Wilson Campbell 1856 Arthur Dickinson 1856 Benjamin Drake Magruder 1856 Lewis Richard Packard 1856 Levi Leonard Paine 1856 James Lyman Whitney ---- 1857 George Pratt 1857 Cyrus Northrop 1857 Moses C. Tyler 1857 Joseph Cooke Jackson 1857 Joseph Payson Buckland 1857 Charles Seymour Blackman 1857 Eli Whitney Blake 1857 Francis Eugene Butler 1857 John Thomas Croxton 1857 John Calvin Day 1857 Alfred Lewis Edwards 1857 James Payne Green 1857 John Milton Holmes 1857 S.O. Seymour 1857 Nathan Dana Wells ---- 1858 William Herrick Woodward 1858 Frederic William Stevens 1858 Edward Dromgoole Grant 1858 Thomas Albert Perkins 1858 Edward Foster Blake 1858 Martin Smyser Eichelberger 1858 Robert Chandler Haskell 1858 Edgar Laing Heermance 1858 Arthur Nelson Hollister 1858 John Edwin Kimball 1858 Samuel Henry Lee 1858 George Boardman MacLellan 1858 Edward Clarke Porter 1858 Eben Greenough Scott 1858 Addison Van Name ---- 1859 Burton Norvel Harrison 1859 William Augustus Stiles 1859 Robert John Carpenter 1859 Louis Henry Bristol 1859 Henry Brodhead 1859 Green Clay 1859 George Elliott Dunham 1859 William Kittredge Hall 1859 Diodate Cushman Hannahs 1859 Charles Franklin Robertson 1859 Eugene Schuyler 1859 Eugene Smith 1859 Alfred Judd Taylor 1859 Roger Sherman White 1859 Asher Henry Wilcoz ---- 1860 Joseph Leonard Daniels 1860 Robert Stewart Davis 1860 John Werle Beckley 1860 Charles Alred Boies 1860 Edward Boltwood 1860 Lowndes Henry Davis 1860 William Fowler 1860 Edward Brown Furbish 1860 Daniel Hebard 1860 William Curtis Johnston 1860 Luther Maynard Jones 1860 Charles Hunter Owen 1860 William Walter Phelps 1860 John Frank Seeley 1860 William Thayer Smith ---- 1861 Hubert Sanford Brown 1861 Edward Rowland Sill 1861 Robert Linton Chamberlain 1861 Simeon Eren Baldwin 1861 Franklin Bowditch Dexter 1861 William Henry Fuller 1861 Anthony Higgins 1861 Francis Edward Kernochan 1861 John Hanson Mitchell 1861 Stanford Newel 1861 William Edwards Park 1861 Tracy Peck 1861 Alexander Porter Root 1861 Sextus Shearer 1861 Ralph Omsted Williams ---- 1862 Franklin Mac Veagh 1862 Henry Phelps Johnston 1862 Daniel Henry Chamberlain 1862 Henry Hamilton Stebbins 1862 John Phelps Taylor 1862 Edward Benton Coe 1862 Melville Cox Day 1862 Sherburne Blake Eaton 1862 Cornelius Ladd Kitchel 1862 William Lampson 1862 George Coit Ripley 1862 William Wallace Seeley 1862 John Abbott Ward 1862 Robert Kelley Weeks ---- 1863 William Graham Sumner 1863 Leander Trowbridge Chamberlain 1863 Cornelius Wade Bull 1863 Charles Jesup Arms 1863 Egert Byron Bingham 1863 John Haskell Butler 1863 Henry Farnam Dimock 1863 Horace Webster Fowler 1863 Joseph Frederic Kernochan 1863 David Brainard Perry 1863 George St. John Sheffield 1863 George Champlin Southworth 1863 Charles Holland Wesson 1863 William Collins Whitney ---- 1864 John William Sterling 1864 William Hall Brace Pratt 1864 Thomas Kast Boltwood 1864 Bradford Matthew Chaloner Durfee 1864 Henry Paine Boyden 1864 Albert Barnes Clark 1864 Thomas Browning Hewitt 1864 Charles Fraser Mc Lean 1864 George Spring Merriam 1864 Allanson Douglas Miller 1864 Henry Elijah Owen 1864 William Henry Palmer 1864 Isaac P. Pugsley 1864 Oliver Sherman White 1864 Francis Eben Woodruff ---- 1865 George Tod Ford 1865 John Edward Brooks 1865 Charles Meigs Charney 1865 Henry Armitt Brown 1865 Tuzar Bulkey 1865 Joseph Appleton Bent 1865 William Benedick Bushnell 1865 Caskey Taliaferro Franklin 1865 John Lewis Ewell 1865 Payson Merrill 1865 Benjamin Clapp Riggs 1865 Charles Edgar Smith 1865 Henry Albert Stimson 1865 William Stone 1865 Henry Waterman Warren ---- 1866 Henry Thompson Sloane 1866 Levi Clifford Wade 1866 William Whitman Farnam 1866 Harry Ward Foote 1866 Charles McClellan Southgate 1866 Edmund Coffin 1866 James Brand 1866 Hamilton Cole 1866 John Manning Hall 1866 Edward Young Hincks 1866 George Chandler Holt 1866 Frederick Newton Judson 1866 Lewis Lampman 1866 George Edward White ---- 1867 Peter Rawson Taft 1867 James M. Spencer 1867 Arthur Douglas Bissel 1867 Morton Dexter 1867 John Jay Du Bois 1867 Rev. Albert Elijah Dunning 1867 Wilder Bennett Harding 1867 Joseph William Hartshorn 1867 Thomas Hedge 1867 Albert Eugene Lamb 1867 Frank Libbey 1867 Horatio Seymour 1867 George Peabody Wetmore 1867 Richard William Woodward ---- 1868 Charles Henry Farnam 1868 LeBaron Bradford Colt 1868 Edward Jefferson Tytus 1868 Henry Park Wright 1868 Thomas Chalmers Sloane 1868 James Kingsley Thacher 1868 William Allison Mc Kinney 1868 John Lewis 1868 William Palmer Dixon 1868 Chauncey Bunce Brewster 1868 James Coffin 1868 Coburn Dewees Berry 1868 Anson Phelps Tinker 1868 Samuel Tweedy 1868 William C. Wood ---- 1869 Henry Clay Bannard 1869 John Pierrepont Foster 1869 Henry Lear 1869 Henry Warren Raymond 1869 Henry Augustin Beers 1869 Wilson Shannon Bissel 1869 John Chester Eno 1869 Henry Varnum Freeman 1869 Edward Heaton 1869 Thomas Hooker 1869 John Beach Isham 1869 Bernadotte Perrin 1869 Rufus Byam Richardson 1869 Arthur Shirley 1869 Alexander Lardner Brown ---- 1870 Ross Johnston 1870 Dwight Whitney Learned 1870 Henry Burratt Mason 1870 Charles Hall Strong 1870 Edwin Russell Stearns 1870 William Curtis Gulliver 1870 James Gore King Mc Clure 1870 Samuel St. John Mc Cutchen 1870 George Douglas Miller 1870 John Hoyt Perry 1870 Edward Griffin Selden 1870 John Waldon Shattuck 1870 Thomas Joseph Tilney 1870 William Henry Welch ---- 1871 George Arthur Strong 1871 Edwin Forrest Sweet 1871 Thomas Thacher 1871 Watson Robertson Sperry 1871 Robert Brinkley Lea 1871 Howard Mansfield 1871 Henry Rutherford Elliot 1871 Alfred Bishop Mason 1871 Charles Hopkins Clark 1871 Frederick Collin 1871 Charles Daniel Hine 1871 Herbert Evelyn Kinney 1871 Frederick Mead 1871 Wilbert Warren Perry 1871 William Kneeland Townsend ---- 1872 Benjamin Hoppin 1872 Robert Elmer Coe 1872 William Lee Cushing 1872 Charles Clerc Deming 1872 Henry Champion Deming 1872 Frederic Shepard Dennis 1872 John Howard Hincks 1872 Alexander Ross Merriam 1872 Georg Foot Moore 1872 Edward Thomas Owen 1872 Henry Silas Payson 1872 Charles Benjamin Ramsdell 1872 George A. Spalding 1872 Theodore Salisbury Woolsey ---- 1873 Rensselaer Wilkinson Daniels 1873 William Beebe 1873 Herbert Mc Kenzie Denslow 1873 Charles Ross Grubb 1873 Isaac Nichols Judson 1873 Herbert William Lathe 1873 Joseph Pacificus Ord 1873 Samuel Oscar Prentice 1873 Frank Bigelow Tarbell 1873 Charles Henry Thomas 1873 Wilbur Wells Flagg 1873 Edward Rudolph Johnes 1873 Samuel James Elder ---- 1874 Edwards Denmore Robbins 1874 Henry Walcott Farnam 1874 Henry Beidleman Bascom Stapler 1874 Pearce Barnes 1874 Samuel Clarke Bushnell 1874 Thomas Williams Grover 1874 Henry Ammon James 1874 George Edmund Munroe 1874 William Parkin 1874 James Mulford Townsend 1874 Russell Walden 1874 Thomas P. Wickes 1874 Frank Spencer Wittherbee 1874 John Seymour Wood ---- 1875 James Wilton Brooks 1875 Carl Thurston Chester 1875 Robert Webster Day 1875 Henry Strong Gulliver 1875 William Henry Hothhkiss 1875 Almet Francis Jenks 1875 Dwight Arven Jones 1875 Frank Hatch Jones 1875 John Patton 1875 John Sammis Seymour 1875 Edward Curtis Smith 1875 Edward Wells Southworth 1875 Charles Hammond Avery 1875 Thomas Slidell Clarke 1875 Charles Tillinghast ---- 1876 Otto Tremont Bannard 1876 Joseph Howard Marvin 1876 Walker Blaine 1876 Elisha Slocum Bottum 1876 Robert Johnston Cook 1876 Chester Mitchell Dawes 1876 Charles Newell Fowler 1876 Arthur Twining Hadley 1876 Elmer Parker Howe 1876 William Waldo Hyde 1876 Philip Gray Russell 1876 Rufus Riggs Smith 1876 Edwin Dean Worcester ---- 1877 Charles Frederick Chapin 1877 William Welch Collin 1877 Walter Irving Bigelow 1877 Walter Brooks 1877 Frederick Bosworth Percy 1877 William Milo Barnum 1877 Eldridge Clinton Cooke 1877 Samuel Lewis Eaton 1877 Anthony Gould 1877 Albert Hoysradt 1877 Arthur Reed Kimball 1877 Joshua Montgomery Sears 1877 John Seymour Thacher 1877 George Montgomery Tuttle 1877 Frederick Seymour Winston ---- 1878 Charles Martin Stone 1878 Charles Langford Spencer 1878 George Tapscott Knoll 1878 Charles Francis Carter 1878 Treat Campbell 1878 George Louis Curtis 1878 George Benjamin Edwards 1878 Roger Foster 1878 William Knowles James 1878 Tudor Jenks 1878 Clarence Kelsey 1878 George Edward Pollock 1878 Edward Howard Seeley, Jr. 1878 William Howard Taft 1878 Edward Baldwin Whitney ---- 1879 Oliver David Thompson 1879 George Forris Foster 1879 Lucien Francis Burpee 1879 Lloyd Wheaton Bowers 1879 Henry Sherwood Green 1879 Henry Hitchcock 1879 Frank Eldridge Hyde 1879 Walter Belknap James 1879 Herman Livingston 1879 John Perrin 1879 Lewis Alfred Platt 1879 Robert Simpson Rodman 1879 Louis Judson Swinburne 1879 Ambrose Tighe 1879 Timothy Lester Woodruff ---- 1880 Edward Curran Spencer 1880 Henry Waters Taft 1880 Edward Manross Bentley 1880 Walter Camp 1880 Edmund Frank Green 1880 Walter Jennings 1880 Alfred Bull Nichols 1880 Henry Choate Ordway 1880 Wilbur Parker 1880 Sidney Catlin Partridge 1880 William Allison Peters 1880 Doremus Scudder 1880 W.C. Wittherbee ---- 1881 Adrian Sebastian Van deGraaff 1881 Norman Frederick Thompson 1881 Philip Golden Barlett 1881 Danford Newton Barney 1881 Joseph Dunn Burrell 1881 John Caldwell Coleman 1881 Sherman Evarts 1881 Philo Carroll Fuller 1881 James Leighton 1881 Thomas Burr Osborne 1881 Frederick Richardson Vernon 1881 Howard Talbott Walden 1881 Henry Charles White ---- 1882 Barclay Johnson 1882 Walter Irving Badger 1882 Benjamin Brewster 1882 Chester Wolcott Lyman 1882 James Alexander Campbell 1882 Wiliam Phelps Eno 1882 Asa Palmer French 1882 Howard Hoyt Knapp 1882 Wilber McBride 1882 Arthur Sherwood Osborne 1882 Henry Barstow Platt 1882 William Pollock 1882 John Lewis Wells 1882 Joseph Ernest Whitney 1882 Franklin Eldred Worcester ---- 1883 Charles Seward Folsom 1883 Charles Seward Foote 1883 Charles Winslow Burpee 1883 Horace Dutton Taft 1883 Louis Kossuth Hull 1883 Lawrence Clerc Deming 1883 Elihu Brintnal Frost 1883 Lord Butler Hillard 1883 Fred William Kellogg 1883 Edward Tompkins Mc Laughlin 1883 E. Hastings Moore 1883 Harry Herbert Palmer 1883 Joseph Robinson Parrott 1883 Sherman Day Thacher 1883 John Butler Woodward ---- 1884 Alexander Lambert 1884 George Reddington Blodgett 1884 Samuel Albert Booth 1884 Wilbur Franklin Booth 1884 Maxwell Evarts 1884 Reginald Foster 1884 Gustav Gruener 1884 Paul Emmott Jenks 1884 Frederick Scheetz Jones 1884 Thomas Garner Lawrance 1884 William Charles Mc Millan 1884 Henry McMahon? Painter 1884 Ray Tompkins 1884 Henry Bancroft Twombly 1884 Amos Parker Wilder ---- 1885 Henry Richmond Flanders 1885 Henry DeForest Baldwin 1885 Henry Stanford Brooks 1885 Lucius Franklin Robinson 1885 John Cloyse Bridgman 1885 John Hulett Arnot 1885 Frank Bosworth Brandegee 1885 Edward Hidden 1885 Charles Buxton Hobbs 1885 Guy Ward Mallon 1885 John McHenry 1885 Wyllys Terry 1885 Samuel Reading Bertron 1885 Wilfred James Worcester ---- 1886 Wallace Percy Knapp 1886 Benjamin Harris Anthony 1886 Samuel Kimball Bremmer 1886 Alfred Cowles 1886 Stanford Tappan Crapo 1886 Thomas Mills Day 1886 Charlton Miner Lewis 1886 Frank George Peters 1886 Edward Johnson Phelps 1886 Sheffield Phelps 1886 Charles Wheeler Pierson 1886 John Christopher Schwab 1886 Arthur Leffingwell Shipman 1886 Philip Battel Stewart 1886 Dudley Winston ---- 1887 John Bennetto 1887 Samuel Knight 1887 William Larned Thacher 1887 Robert Nelson Corwin 1887 William Hutchinson Cowles 1887 Alexander Brown Coxe 1887 Willard Robinson Douglass 1887 Clinton Larue Hare 1887 George Griswold Haven 1887 Oliver Goud Jennings 1887 William Burrage Kendall, Jr. 1887 William Kent 1887 John Norton Pomeroy 1887 John Rogers 1887 Walter Bradley Sheppard ---- 1888 Irving Fisher 1888 Richard Melanemon Hurd 1888 Amos Alonzo Stagg 1888 Morrison R. Waite 1888 Henry Lewis Stimson 1888 Frederic Augustus Stevenson 1888 Harlan Ward Cooley 1888 George Metcalf Gill 1888 Orland Sidney Isbell 1888 James Howard Mc Millan 1888 David Whipple Morison 1888 Samuel Sidney Roby 1888 William Henry Seward 1888 Fred Palmer Solley 1888 Samuel Johnson Walker ---- 1889 Henry Seymour Robinson 1889 Samuel Herbert Fisher 1889 Reuben H. Donnelley 1889 Richard Robert Donnelley 1889 Thomas Elliott Donnelley 1889 Horace Sheldon Stokes 1889 Thomas Walter Buchanan 1889 William Herbert Corbin 1889 Charles Otis Gill 1889 John Cornelius Griggs 1889 William Adolph Mc Quaid 1889 Gifford Pinchot 1889 Harry Lathrop Reed 1889 Herbert Augustine Smith 1889 Horace Flecher Walker 1889 Herbert Wetmore Wells 1889 George Washington Woodruff ---- 1890 Wallace Erskine Simmons 1890 John Dorrance Farnam 1890 Evarts Tracy 1890 Fairfax Harrison 1890 Y. Kneeland 1890 Sidney Nelson Morse 1890 Henry Manning Sage 1890 Percy Hamilton Stewart 1890 Thomas Francis Bayard 1890 John White Corwith 1890 John Crosby 1890 Arthur Pomeroy Day 1890 Lewis Scofield Haslam 1890 Norman James 1890 Charles Poole Kellogg ---- 1891 William Erskine Simms 1891 Frederic Collin Walcott 1891 Joe Garner Estill 1891 William Phillips Graves 1891 Samuel Clifton Thomson 1891 Governeur Calhoun 1891 John Joughin Cox 1891 Edward Swift Isham 1891 Vertner Kenerson 1891 Norman Mc Clintock 1891 Samuel Benjamin Morison 1891 William Frederick Poole 1891 John Wesley Doane 1891 Henry Hallam Tweedy 1891 Charles Francis Word ---- 1892 Henry Solon Graves 1892 Hugh Aiken Bayne 1892 Edward Boltwood 1892 Howell Cheney 1892 Knight Dexter Cheney, Jr. 1892 Benjamin Lewis Crosby, Jr. 1892 Clive Day 1892 James William Husted 1892 James Wernham Dunsford Ingersoll 1892 Pierre Jay 1892 William Lloyd Kitchel 1892 Lee McClung 1892 Stanford Newel Morison 1892 Frank Julian Price 1892 Ernest Ryle ---- 1893 Logan Hay 1893 Adrian Van Sinderen Lambert 1893 John Trunbull Robinson 1893 George Greene Martin 1893 Sherwood Bissell Ives 1893 William Reynolds Begg 1893 James Barclay Cooke 1893 Winthrop Edwards Dwight 1893 Edson Fessenden Gallaudet 1893 Alfred Henry Jones 1893 William White Wilson Parker 1893 Francis Parsons 1893 Joseph Roby 1893 Derby Rogers 1893 Alexander Hamilton Wallace ---- 1894 John Howland 1894 William Stuart Walcott 1894 George Bowen Case 1894 Thomas Cochran 1894 Thomas Frederick Davies 1894 John Loomer Hall 1894 Meredith Hare 1894 Edwin Olaf Holster 1894 Robert Campbell James 1894 Philip Hamilton Mc Millan 1894 Ralph Delahaye Paine 1894 Leland Stanford Stillman 1894 Walter Eugene Stewart, Jr. 1894 Harry Payne Whitney ---- 1895 William Sloane 1895 Francis Burton Harrison 1895 Anson McCook Beard 1895 Mortimer Norton Buckner 1895 Frank Seiler Butterworth 1895 Benjamin Stickney Cable 1895 Walter Frederick Carter 1895 Alexander Ray Clark 1895 Walter Evans Cooke 1895 Benjamin Davis 1895 Lindsay Denison 1895 Frank Augustus Hinkey 1895 Lanier Mc Kee 1895 Zira Bennett Phelps 1895 Arthur Shepley ---- 1896 Ralph Bishop Treadway 1896 Alexander Brown 1896 Jules Henri De Sibour 1896 William Mossgrove Beard 1896 Ward Cheney 1896 William Redmond Cross 1896 Maitland Fuller Griggs 1896 M. Dunn Mc Kee 1896 James Brown Neale 1896 Winthrop Davenport Smith 1896 Anson Phelps Stokes 1896 Samuel Brinckeroff Thorne 1896 Edward Livingston Trudeau, Jr. 1896 Frederick Edward Weyerhaeuser ---- 1897 Henry Sloan Coffin 1897 Clarence Mann Fincke 1897 Dean Sage 1897 Graham Sumner 1897 Philip Horton Bailey 1897 George Clymer Brooke 1897 Elisha Ely Garrison 1897 Sumner Gerard 1897 Curtenius Gillette 1897 Albert Boardman Kerr 1897 Cornelius Porter Kitchel 1897 Amos Richards Eno Pinchot 1897 Nathan Ayer Smyth 1897 Joseph Stober Wheelwright 1897 Norman Alton Williams ---- 1898 James Wolcott Wadsworth, Jr. 1898 Morton Lazell Fearey 1898 Frank Hunter Simmons 1898 Clifford Dudley Cheney 1898 Henry Burt Wright 1898 Herbert Draper Gallaudet 1898 Eugene Hale, Jr. 1898 Frank Gilbert Hinsdale 1898 Frederic Kernochan 1898 Franklin Atkins Lord 1898 Grenville Dodge Montgomery 1898 Grenville Parker 1898 D. Rogers 1898 Payne Whitney 1898 Forsyth Wickes ---- 1899 Jamot Brown 1899 Carroll Fuller Sweet 1899 Henry Thornton Bowles 1899 Frederick Hiester Brooke 1899 Hugh Andrew Callahan 1899 Dwight Huntington Day 1899 William Edward Schenck Griswold 1899 Thomas Skinner Maffitt 1899 James Mc Devitt Magee 1899 Ord Preston 1899 Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt 1899 Charles Hopkins Welles, Jr. 1899 William Fitzhugh Whitehouse ---- 1900 Hulbert Taft 1900 Stuart Brown Camp 1900 Frank Dexter Cheney 1900 John Walter Cross 1900 Malcolm Douglas 1900 James Cowan Greenway 1900 John Morgan Hopkins 1900 Ashley Leavatt 1900 George Armstrong Lyon 1900 Brace Whitman Paddock 1900 Percy Avery Rockefeller 1900 Corlis Esmonde Sullivan ---- 1901 James Mandeville Carlisle 1901 Thomas Langdon Cheney 1901 Henry Hall Christian 1901 Sherman Lockwood Coy 1901 Philip Cheney 1901 Richard Henry Edwards 1901 John Shepard Eels 1901 Robert Hixon 1901 Warren J. Hoysradt 1901 John Arthur Keppelman 1901 Ray Morris 1901 Allan Harvey Richardson 1901 George Arnold Welch 1901 Alfred Parks Wright ---- 1902 Alfred Ludlow Ferguson 1902 George Boone Carpenter 1902 Alfred Miller Cressler 1902 Charles Cyprian Strong Cushing 1902 William Edwards Day 1902 Raymond Gano Guernsey 1902 Roderick Potter 1902 Bronson Case Rumsley 1902 Frank H. Sincerrbeaux 1902 Alan McLean? Taylor 1902 Harold Stone 1902 Joseph Rockwell Swan 1902 Mason Throwbridge 1902 Percy Gardiner White ---- 1903 George Brewster Chadwick 1903 Harold Terry Clark 1903 Erastus Corning 1903 John Martin Dreisbach 1903 Chauncey Jerome Hamlin 1903 Brower Hewitt 1903 Henry Chandler Holt 1903 Albert Richard Lamb 1903 Frank Wood Moore 1903 Stuart Bruen Sutphin 1903 Donald Thompson 1903 Henry Mitchell Wallace 1903 Antonio Johnston Waring 1903 John Richards White 1903 Frederick William Wilhelmi ---- 1904 Russell Cheney 1904 Thomas Cochran 1904 Winthrop Murray Crane, Jr. 1904 Walter Snell Cross 1904 Francis Talmage Dodge 1904 Percy Hall Jennings 1904 John Caspar Kittle 1904 Harold Grant Metcalf 1904 James Ely Miller 1904 Frederick Erastus Pierce 1904 Lansing Parmalee Reed 1904 Willard Burr Soper 1904 Thomas Day Thacher 1904 Thomas Thacher 1904 Allan Wardwell 1904 Frederick H. Wiggin ---- 1905 Arthur Howe Bradford 1905 Berrien Hughes 1905 John Stoughton Ellsworth 1905 Stuyvesant Fish 1905 James Joseph Hogan 1905 Buell Hollister 1905 John Hiram Lathrop 1905 Gardner Richardson 1905 Edmund Pendleton Rogers 1905 Murray Sargent 1905 John Sloane 1905 Robert Fingland Tilney II 1905 Harold McLeod Turner 1905 William Knickerbocker Van Reypen, Jr. 1905 Edwin Sheldon Whitehouse ---- 1906 Donald Bruce 1906 Louis deVierville Dousman 1906 Grosvenor Ely 1906 Alexander Rex Flynn 1906 Lydic Hoyl 1906 John Gillespie MaGee 1906 James Gore King McClure, Jr. 1906 Donald Ashbrook McGee 1906 William S. Moorhead 1906 Frank O'Brien 1906 Lee James Perrin 1906 Foster Harry Rockwell 1906 Bruce Donald Smith 1906 Spencer Turner 1906 Hugh Robert Wilson ---- 1907 George Coolidge Tuttle 1907 William Deluce Barnes 1907 William McCormick Blair 1907 Arthur Goodwin Camp 1907 Forest Leonard Daniels 1907 Richard Ely Danielson 1907 Theodore Polehemus Dixon 1907 Philip Lyndon Dodge 1907 Georges Brette Glaenzer 1907 Hugh Smith Knox 1907 Mitchell Stuart Little 1907 Samuel Finley Brown Morse 1907 Calvin Truesdale 1907 Harold Sherman Wells 1907 Heathcote Morison Woolsey ---- 1908 Lucius Horatio Biglow 1908 George Dahl 1908 Walter Goodwin Davis 1908 Tyson Dines 1908 Joseph Taylor Foster 1908 Dwight Torrey Griswold 1908 Lester William Perrin 1908 Charles Seymour 1908 Roger Bulkley Shepard 1908 Harold Stanley 1908 James Carlton Thorton 1908 George Henry Townsend 1908 Charles Law Watkins 1908 James Willard Williams ---- 1909 Harvey Hollister Bundy 1909 Hollister Bundy 1909 Robert Boyd Burch 1909 Charles Soutter Campbell 1909 Avery Artison Clark 1909 Gayer Gardner Dominick 1909 James Merriam Howard 1909 Henry Almy Howe 1909 Edward Francis Jefferson 1909 Allen Trafford Klots 1909 Henry Lippitt 1909 John Bates Perrin 1909 Stuart Craig Rand 1909 Benjamin Sanderson 1909 Mortimer Ashmfad Seabury 1909 Harold Phelps Stokes ---- 1910 Edward Harris Coy 1910 Stanhope Bayne-Jones 1910 Albert De Silver 1910 Charles Pascal Franchot 1910 Robert Dudley French 1910 George Leslie Harrison 1910 John Heron 1910 Lyndon Marrs King 1910 Augustus Knight 1910 Walter Seth Logan 1910 Carl Albert Lohmann 1910 Frederick James Murphy 1910 Stephen Philbin II 1910 Robert Alphonso Taft 1910 R.A. Wodell ---- 1911 Clinton Wildes Davis 1911 Sherwood Sunderland Day 1911 Cornelius Ennis Lombardi 1911 Paul Bradford Badger 1911 Alan Lyle Corey 1911 Frederick Joseph Daly 1911 John Bourne Dempsey 1911 Arthur Amory Gammell 1911 Frederick Walton Hyde 1911 John Vincent Mc Donnell 1911 Francis Fitz Randolph 1911 John T. Rowland 1911 Leslie Soule 1911 Henry Brinsmade VanSinderen 1911 Lawrence Raymond Wheeler ---- 1912 Robert Abbe Gardner 1912 Donald R. Hyde 1912 Henry Abbott Street 1912 Edwin Augustus Strout, Jr. 1912 Alexander Campbell Tener 1912 Francis T. Boyd 1912 Cavour Hartley 1912 Arthur Howe 1912 Archibald McClure 1912 Henry Newton Merritt 1912 Frederic Parsons Mullins 1912 Charles Henry Paul 1912 J. Gregory Smith 1912 Edward Bancroft Twombly 1912 Gerald Clery Murphy ---- 1913 Calvin Durand Allen 1913 Clarence Emir Allen, Jr. 1913 Richard Wheeler Baker 1913 Colgate Henry Auchincloss 1913 George Bruce Cortelyou 1913 Alfred Cowles 1913 Archer Harman 1913 W. Averell Harriman 1913 August Sidney Lovett 1913 Alexander 1913 Jesse Holladay Philbin 1913 Homer Eugene Sawyer, Jr. 1913 Allan Shelden 1913 William Otis Waters ---- 1914 Benjamin F. Avery 1914 Percy Gillette Cornish, Jr. 1914 Thomas Leonard Daniels 1914 Gile Clement Moses 1914 George Gill Jones 1914 Henry Holman Ketcham 1914 Stoddard King 1914 William Jackson Lippincott 1914 Richard Osborn 1914 George Washington Patterson 1914 Herman Livingston Rogers 1914 Lorrin Andrews Shepard 1914 William Candee Warren, Jr. 1914 Edwin A. Buritt ---- 1915 Lyon Carter 1915 Thomas Hilary Cornell 1915 Stephen Rintoul Davenport 1915 Thomas Bayne Denegre 1915 Ranald Mac Donald II 1915 Archibald Mac Leish 1915 Louis Shelton Middlebrook 1915 Irving Paris 1915 Harold Armstrong Pumpelly 1915 John Sylvester Reilly 1915 William Martindale Shedden 1915 Edwin Lyon Slocum 1915 Edward James Stackpole 1915 Walker Ely Swift ---- 1916 Arthur Burr Darling 1916 Samuel Gourdin Gaillard, Jr. 1916 Morris Hadley 1916 Henry Webb Johnstone 1916 Farwell Knapp 1916 Wesley M. Oler 1916 Gilbert Edwin Porter III 1916 Phelps Putnam 1916 Charles Holmes Roberts, Jr 1916 Donald Carrington Shepard 1916 Donald Ogden Stewart 1916 Kinley John Tener 1916 Laurence Gotzian Tighe 1916 Herman Vademar Von Holt 1916 Charles Rumford Walker 1916 Alfred Rammond Bellinger ---- 1917 Prescott Sheldon Bush 1917 Henry Sage Fenimore Cooper 1917 Oliver Bulg Cunnigham 1917 Samuel Sloan Duryee 1917 Edward Roland "Bunny" Noel Harriman 1917 Henry Peter Isham 1917 Ellery Sedgewick James 1917 Harry William Le Gore 1917 Henry Neil Mallon 1917 Albert William Olsen 1917 John William Overton 1917 Frank Parsons Shepard, Jr. 1917 Kenneth Farrand Simpson 1917 Knight Woolley 1917 Allen Wallace Ames ---- 1918 Howard Malcolm Baldridge 1918 Cassius Marcellus Clay 1918 F. Trubee Davison 1918 Robert Barr Deans 1918 Newell Garfield 1918 Artemus L. Gates 1918 Gould James 1918 Robert Abercrombie Lovett 1918 Raymond Franklin Snell 1918 Charles Jacob Stewart 1918 Charles Phelps Taft 1918 John Martin Vorys 1918 John Eliot Woolley 1918 Parker Breese Allen ---- 1919 Sherman Baldwin 1919 Alan Barnette Campbell 1919 Frederic Dewhurst Carter 1919 Canson Goodyear Depew 1919 Edward McCrady Gaillard 1919 Hamilton Hadley 1919 Charles C. Haffner, Jr. 1919 John Howard Mallon 1919 Alexander Agnew McCormick, Jr. 1919 Elmore Mcneill McKee 1919 Winter Mead 1919 James Sanford Otis 1919 Traver Smith 1919 George Nesmith Walker 1919 Lewis G. Adams ---- 1920 Harry Pomeroy Davison 1920 Frank Peavey Heffelfinger 1920 John Morris Hincks 1920 Francis Thayer Hobson 1920 David Sinton Ingalls 1920 Henry Robinson Luce 1920 James Mc Henry 1920 Morehead Patterson 1920 Theodore Lee Safford 1920 Joseph Weir Sargent 1920 Alfred Cosler Schermerhorn 1920 De Forest Van Slyck 1920 Daniel R. Winter 1920 John Sidney Acosta ---- 1921 Charles Harvey Bradley 1921 Walter Rice Brewster 1921 Frederick McGeorge Bundy 1921 William Sheffield Cowles 1921 Bartow Lewis Heminway 1921 Stephen Young Hord 1921 Marcien Jenckes 1921 Willard David Litt 1921 Storer Boardman Lunt 1921 James E. Neville 1921 Langdon Parsons 1921 Edward Leonard Shevlin 1921 John Stewart 1921 Edwin Wheeler Winter II 1921 Malcolm Pratt Aldrich ---- 1922 James Smith Bush 1922 Ward Cheney 1922 Albert Hastings Crosby 1922 Albert Carl Frost, Jr. 1922 Frederick Whitney Hilles 1922 Robert Johnson Larner 1922 William Galey Lord 1922 Robert Guthrie Page 1922 Lee Patterson 1922 Wells Root 1922 Robert Folger Solley 1922 Henry Barnard Strong 1922 John Allen Miner Thomas 1922 Frederic dePeyster Townsend, Jr. 1922 Stanley Woodward 1922 G. Campbell Becket ---- 1923 Jonathan Ogden Bulkey 1923 John Sherman Cooper 1923 Russell Wheeler Davenport 1923 Huntington T. Day 1923 Maxwell E. Foster 1923 Louis Kepler Hyde, Jr. 1923 Ralph Edward Jordan 1923 Charles Pinckney Luckey 1923 Francis Otto Matthessen 1923 George Washington Norton, Jr. 1923 Bernard Berenger Pelly 1923 Alfred Newton Wheeler 1923 Henry Elisha Allen ---- 1924 George Frederick Baer Appel 1924 Edwin Foster Blair 1924 John Cabot Diller 1924 Sherman Ewing 1924 Thomas Frederick David Haines 1924 George Wright Peavy Heffelfinger 1924 Charles Dewey Hilles, Jr. 1924 Walter Edwards Houghton 1924 William Thompson Lusk 1924 William Neely Mallory 1924 Revell Mc Callum 1924 William Davis Melton, Jr. 1924 Charles Merville Spofford 1924 Clifton Samuel Thomson 1924 William Preston Johnston ---- 1925 Rushton Leigh Ardrey 1925 Frank Davis Ashburn 1925 Edward Cajetan Bench 1925 William Truesdale Bissell 1925 James Grant Blair 1925 Charles Stafford Gage 1925 Gerard M. Ives 1925 Walter Clyde Jones 1925 Winslow Meston Lovejoy 1925 Richard John Luman 1925 William Bunnell Norton 1925 Henry Clarkson Scott 1925 Marvin A. Stevens 1925 Donald D. Stevenson 1925 Daniel Allen ---- 1926 James Davis Bronson 1926 Henry Cornice Coke, Jr. 1926 Henry Stetson Crosby 1926 Benjamin Crawford Cutler 1926 John A Davenport 1926 Alfred L. Ferguson, Jr. 1926 John A. Mc Hoysradt 1926 Howard Thayer Kingsbury 1926 Oswald Bates Lord 1926 Anthony Lee Michel 1926 Charles Graydon Poore 1926 Reginald Dean Root 1926 Frank Ford Russell 1926 Richard Lodge Tighe 1926 Charles Hastings Willard 1926 Phil W. Bunnell ---- 1927 Allen M. Look 1927 Harris Mc Intosh 1927 Lawrence Mason Noble 1927 Thomas Cleveland Patterson 1927 Russell Lee Post 1927 Wallace Parks Richie 1927 William Wells Robbins 1927 Frederick Flower Robinson 1927 Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr. 1927 George Herbert Walker, Jr. 1927 Edward Rogers Wardwell 1927 John Davock Warren 1927 Charles Watson III 1927 Dana Treat Bartholomew ---- 1928 George Bart Berger, Jr. 1928 Charles Tiffany Bingham 1928 Dwight Brown Fishwick 1928 Herbert Stanton Griggs, Jr. 1928 George Winthrop Haight 1928 Barton Lee Mallory, Jr. 1928 John Rockefeller Prentice 1928 Howard Copland Robertson, Jr. 1928 Lancelot Patrick Ross 1928 Stewart Patterson Scott 1928 Peter Hellwege Stewart 1928 Stoughton Walker 1928 Albert Blackhurst Ashforth ---- 1929 Granger Kent Costikyan 1929 George Crile, Jr. 1929 Edmund Lockwood Decker, Jr. 1929 Washington Dodge 1929 Maxon Hunter Eddy 1929 John Joseph Garvey 1929 Kenrick S. Gillespie 1929 Manasses Jacob Grove 1929 Hiram Edward Manville, Jr. 1929 Henry Riddle Merrill 1929 Ralph D. Paine, Jr. 1929 Lloyd Hilton Smith 1929 Damon de Blois Wack 1929 George Wells II 1929 Robert Seaman Allison, Jr. ---- 1930 Harland Montgomery Ellis 1930 Raymond Walleser Ellis 1930 Albert DeW Erskine, Jr. 1930 Walter Wood Garnsey 1930 Waldo Wittenmyer Greene 1930 Samuel Lawrence Gwin 1930 Robert A. Hall 1930 Charles Anderson Janeway 1930 Louis Williams Ladd, Jr. 1930 George B. Longstreth 1930 Frank Byron Look 1930 John Miller Musser 1930 Arthur Edward Palmer 1930 Tom Prideaux 1930 David Edward Austen ---- 1931 Gaylord Donnelley 1931 Henry John Heinz II 1931 Lewis Abbot Lapham 1931 Frederic William Loeser 1931 William A. Lydgate 1931 Robert L. Messimer, Jr. 1931 William Learned Peitz 1931 Joseph Cornelius Rathborne 1931 James Ross Stewart 1931 Walter Moore Swoope 1931 Luther B.D. Tucker 1931 Francis T. Vincent 1931 John Mercer Walker 1931 F.B. Adams, Jr. ---- 1932 Herster D. Barres 1932 Emmert Warren Bates 1932 George Hopper Fitch 1932 Robert Brank Fulton 1932 S.Hazard Gillespie Jr. 1932 William Van Derveer Hodges, Jr. 1932 Mortimer Hamlin Laundon, Jr. 1932 John Townsend Lindenberg 1932 John Reagan Mc Crary, Jr. 1932 James Paul Mills 1932 Eugene Gladstone O'Neill, Jr. 1932 Alfred Ogden 1932 Bouifelle Savage, Jr. 1932 Samuel Goode Williams 1932 Samuel Smith Caldwell, Jr. ---- 1933 Francis Judd Cooke 1933 Richard Marden Davis 1933 Alexander Charles Fletcher 1933 William Smith Garnsey 1933 Frederick Bagry Hall, Jr. 1933 Theodore S. Jones 1933 Walter B. Levering 1933 Frances Vinton Lindley 1933 John Michael McGauley 1933 James Quigg Newton, Jr. 1933 Robert Boyd Parker 1933 Henry Mc Ilvaine Parsons 1933 M. Parsons 1933 Hart Lyman Stebbins 1933 John Smith Wilbur ---- 1934 Amory Howe Bradford 1934 Hugh Terry Cunningham 1934 George Arthur Gordon 1934 John Folsom Hallett 1934 Thomas Edward Hambleton Harper, Jr. 1934 Harry Halsted Holmes 1934 John Grier 1934 John Herrick Jackson 1934 Johm M. Kilcullen 1934 Walter S. Kimball 1934 Edward Ensign Mills 1934 John Bolt Morse 1934 Edward Nichols 1934 George Alfred Ranney 1934 Eugene William Stetson, Jr. 1934 John Eliot Bowles ---- 1935 Samuel Carnes Collier 1935 Francis Clare Curtin 1935 Stanley Evert Fuller 1935 Joseph.Hale Johnson 1935 William Skinner Kilborne 1935 John Sargent Pillsbury, Jr. 1935 Thomas Rodd III 1935 Charles Seymour, Jr. 1935 Roger Bulkley Shepard, Jr. 1935 Lyman B. Spitzer, Jr. 1935 George Schley Stillman 1935 H.P.Baldwin Terry 1935 Bowen Charleton Tufts 1935 Richard James Barr, Jr. ---- 1936 Jonathan Brewster Bingham 1936 Robert Barbour Cooke 1936 Horace Webber Davis II 1936 James Bulloch Dunwody 1936 B.Gill 1936 Frederick Peter Haas 1936 Jesse Angell Hall 1936 John Richard Hersey 1936 John Merrill Knapp 1936 Richard Anthony Moore 1936 Edmund Pennington Pillsbury 1936 B. Courtney Rankin 1936 B. Shepard 1936 Robert Train 1936 Louis Walker 1936 Mather Kimbal Whitehead 1936 Dexter B. Blake ---- 1937 F.H. Brooke, Jr. 1937 Charles Clinton Burke, Jr. 1937 Richard James Cross 1937 Arthur Joy Draper 1937 John Warner Field 1937 L.M. Kelley 1937 John Briggs Mc Lemore, Jr. 1937 Richard Curtis Miles 1937 William H. Orrick, Jr. 1937 John Trunbull Robinson 1937 John Felch Bertram Runnals 1937 Potter.Stewart 1937 Louis T. Stone, Jr. 1937 H.M. Turner 1937 Bradford Warwick Davenport ---- 1938 James Howard Dempsey, Jr. 1938 Joseph Richardson Dilworth 1938 Lawrence Boardman Dunham, Jr. 1938 John E. Ecklund 1938 Joseph Carrere Fox 1938 Clinton E. Frank 1938 Edward McGuire Gordon 1938 Albert Hessberg II 1938 Raymond White Lapham 1938 Amos Egmont Schermerhorn 1938 Joseph B. Stevens, Jr. 1938 John R. Thompson 1938 George Haines Weed 1938 Francis Slingluff Whitman, Jr. 1938 Richard Emery Wilbur 1938 Gaspard d'Andelot Belin ---- 1939 Jerred Gurley Blanchard 1939 William Putman Bundy 1939 George Hastings Chittenden 1939 Lowell Melcher Clucas 1939 Arthur Delma Dyess, Jr. 1939 Clement D. Gile 1939 Archibald Robinson Hoston, Jr. 1939 W.W. Kellogg 1939 Andrew Otterson Miller 1939 Charles Lewis Miller, Jr. 1939 Harry H. Mitchell 1939 Lloyd Montgomery Sheapard, Jr. 1939 Frederick William Wilhelmi, Jr. 1939 Burch Williams 1939 Mc George Bundy ---- 1940 Thomas Franklin Erickson 1940 Charles C. Glover III 1940 James Gordon Grayson 1940 Reuben A. Holden 1940 Harold Howe II 1940 Andrew Downey Orrick 1940 David B. Rodd 1940 Joseph William Stack Jr. 1940 Albert B. Stevens 1940 Peter Gordon Bradley Stillman 1940 William McDowell Stucky 1940 Edward Francis Swenson, Jr. 1940 Peter Brinckerhoff Thorne 1940 William Berkley Watson, Jr. 1940 W.R. Cross, Jr. ---- 1941 Donald S. Devor, Jr. 1941 F.Henry Ellis Jr. 1941 Edward Tuck Hall 1941 William E. Jackson 1941 Delaney Kiphuth 1941 John Beckwith Madden 1941 Lawrence Kimball Pickett 1941 Charles Baird Price Jr. 1941 Peter O.A. Solbert 1941 Charles P. Stevenson 1941 Walton D. Thomas 1941 Laurence Gotzian Tighe, Jr. 1941 Warren Benton White 1941 William Gardiner White 1941 Barry Zorthian ---- 1942 William Anderson Aycrigg II 1942 Alan Edmund Bartholemy 1942 William Tompkins Bell 1942 Rene Auguste Chouteau 1942 William Ford 1942 Cary Travers Grayson, Jr. 1942 Ralph Wetmore Halsey, Jr. 1942 Fred Harold Harrison 1942 J.B. Jessup 1942 J.B. Kemp 1942 George W. Kirchwey 1942 Howard Freeman Smith, Jr. 1942 Frank Arnoit Sprole 1942 John S. Walker 1942 David Campton Acheson ---- 1943 George Peck Caulkins, Jr. 1943 John H. Daniels 1943 Duncan Hunter Doolittle 1943 Richard Dale Drain 1943 Harold Harris Healy, Jr. 1943 Donald Wright Hoagland 1943 Allen Trafford Klotts, Jr. 1943 Frank Walder Liley, Jr. 1943 John Helm McLean 1943 Dudley Livingston Miller 1943 Spencer Dumaresq Mosely 1943 Zeph Stewart 1943 John Kaye Tabor 1943 Tom D. Vogt 1943 Samuel Taylor Glover Brown ---- 1944 James Lane Buckley 1944 Shehand Daniel Elebash 1944 Alexander Ellis, Jr. 1944 James Lord Ferguson 1944 John Bannister Goodenough 1944 William Cabell Grayson 1944 John Morgan Holden 1944 Townsend Walter Hoopes 1944 W.C. Kelly II 1944 David A. Lindsay 1944 Stuart W. Little 1944 Jeffrey Pond Walker 1944 James Allen Whitmore, Jr. 1944 Dean Witter, Jr. 1944 Archibald J..Allen, Jr. ---- 1945 Gilman Dorr Blake, Jr 1945 Walter Henderson Brown 1945 John Carey 1945 William Judkins Clark 1945 L. Connick 1945 George Cook III 1945 Edwin Lyon Dale, Jr. 1945 Endicott Peabody Davison 1945 Hobart Evans Early 1945 Francis Bolton Elwell, Jr. 1945 Archer Harman, Jr. 1945 Gordon Buckland Huribut, Jr. 1945 R.Vincent Lynch 1945 Benjamin Thomas McElroy 1945 Guy Ennis Mc Gaughey, Jr. 1945 William S. Moorhead 1945 Irving Seaman, Jr. 1945 Josiah Augustus Spaulding 1945 William S. Sumner 1945 Elliot Evans Vose 1945 George U. Warren 1945 Valleau Wilke 1945 Charles Booth Alling, Jr. ---- 1945 George Burgwin Holmes 1945 Thomas Ridgway Mallon 1945 Phillip O'Brien Jr. 1945 Charles Pratt W Twichell 1945 W Winthrop Ross Wickwire ---- 1947 Edward Williamson Andrews, Jr. 1947 William M. Boulos (Bouliaratis) 1947 David Bennet Bronson 1947 John M. Chafee 1947 John George Gilpin Finley 1947 William Skinner Goedecke 1947 Donald Loyal Leavenworth 1947 James I. Moore 1947 Frank O'Brien, Jr. 1947 Charles Edward Palmer 1947 Richard Rollins Read 1947 H.C. Robinson, Jr. 1947 Carl Tucker, Jr. 1947 Charles Sheldon Whitehouse 1947 Thomas William Ludlow Ashley ---- 1948 Lucius Horatio Biglow, Jr. 1948 George Herbert Walker Bush 1948 John Ervin Caulkins 1948 William James Connelly, Jr. 1948 David Charles Grimes 1948 Richard Elwood Jenkins 1948 Richard Gesrtle Mack 1948 Thomas Wilder Moseley 1948 G.H. Pfau, Jr. 1948 Samuel Sloan Walker,Jr. 1948 Howard Sayer Weaver 1948 Valleau Wilkie, Jr. 1948 Richard Pfeifer Baribault ---- 1949 Barton Bradley Bassett II 1949 Rev. William.S. Coffin, Jr. 1949 Daniel Pomeroy Davison 1949 Robert M. Goodyear 1949 J. B. Hollister, Jr. 1949 A. Lavelli, Jr. 1949 Joseph McCarrell Leiper 1949 David McCord Lippincott 1949 Charles Edwin Lord II 1949 Peter Wende Lufkin, Sr. 1949 George T.P. Raymond 1949 Franklin Goldwaithe Sherrill 1949 Vance Van Dine 1949 John Gerald Breen ---- 1950 William Frank Buckley, Jr. 1950 William Draper III 1950 Victor H. Frank, Jr. 1950 Evan Griffith Galbraith 1950 Thomas Henry Guinzburg 1950 Victor William Henningsen, Jr. 1950 Philip Sperry Kemp 1950 Paul Christopher Lambert 1950 Sidney Lovett 1950 Charles Pinckney Luckey 1950 William Mac Leish 1950 Robert Mc Lean III 1950 Dino John Pionzio 1950 Donald Carrington Shepard ---- 1951 Thomas Hill Anderson 1951 John W. Eden 1951 Garrison McClintock Noel Ellis 1951 G. Corson Ellis, Jr. 1951 Ralph Frank Love 1951 Chauncey F. Lufkin 1951 Craig Mathews 1951 Charles Theodore Mayer 1951 Thomas Philip McNamara 1951 Raymond Kissam Price,Jr. 1951 Edward Snover Reed 1951 Richard Warren Russell 1951 Joseph Mather Ryan 1951 Charles R.S. Shepard 1951 Donlan Vincent Aberg, Jr. ---- 1952 Fergus Reid Buckley 1952 Abram Claude, Jr. 1952 Andrew Jackson Connick 1952 Paul Fessenden Cruikshank, Jr. 1952 Colin Tobias Eisler 1952 Graham Stanley Finney 1952 Charles S. Haight, Jr. 1952 John Winslow Hincks 1952 Frank Dutton Kittredge 1952 George Brooke Roberts, Jr. 1952 Edward Charles Senay 1952 Robert Samuel Spears 1952 Martin W. Vorys 1952 Jonathan Duncan Bulkey ---- 1953 Jonathan James Bush 1953 William Henry Donaldson 1953 Edwin A. Durham II 1953 Christy Payne Emerson 1953 Dan Wende Lufkin 1953 John Birnie Marshall 1953 James Price Mc Lane 1953 John Dennis Menton 1953 Joseph Berry Mitinger 1953 Lawerence Mason Noble, Jr. 1953 David A. Novkov 1953 George Herbert Walker III 1953 John William Weber 1953 Harold Edward Woodsum, Jr. 1953 Harry Bryner Benninghoff ---- 1954 T. Boyd Evans 1954 S. Joseph Fortunato 1954 Richard C. Gifford 1954 Arthur R. Gisen, Jr. 1954 Richard Hyde Hiers 1954 Walter C. Kilrea 1954 Russell William Meyer, Jr. 1954 Thruston Ballard Morton, Jr. 1954 Richard Frank Polich 1954 Ross E. Price 1954 Robert Gordon Reponen 1954 Thomas D. Rowe, Jr. 1954 Allan A. Ryan III 1954 Spencer Jason Schnaitter 1954 Francis Henry Slade 1954 Edmund Braxton Thorton ---- 1955 Lloyd Thomas Bryan, Jr. 1955 Stephen Elliott De Forest 1955 Gerald F. Fehr 1955 Richard Haigh Gow 1955 Charles Grady Green 1955 Hugh G. Guidotti 1955 Roger Allen Hansen 1955 Franklin Donald Hudson 1955 Philip Mathias II 1955 David G. Mc Cullough 1955 Thorne Martin Shugart 1955 Richard Cooke Steadman 1955 Ray Carter Walker 1955 Howard D. Banks ---- 1956 James Emanuel Boasberg III 1956 Andrew Squire Dempsey 1956 C. Gibson Durfee, Jr. 1956 Caldwell Blakesman Esselstyn, Jr. 1956 Milton J. Gaines 1956 Ingalls, Jr. David Sinton 1956 Thomas Crawford Jamieson, Jr. 1956 Terrence R. Malloy 1956 Jack F. Mc Gregor 1956 James Paul Menton 1956 Andrew Alexander Orr 1956 James Breckinridge Speed 1956 Peter A. Traphagen 1956 Stephen H. Ackerman ---- 1957 Ralph David Bowman 1957 Ray Allen Carlsen 1957 Russell Inslee Clark, Jr. 1957 Charles W. Cushman 1957 George J. Dunn 1957 Peter B. Fritzche 1957 Vernon R. Loucks, Jr. 1957 Anthony Hookey Loughran 1957 Richard Anthony Lumpkin 1957 John P. Oberlin 1957 L. Guy Palmer II 1957 Wallace Parks Ritchie, Jr. 1957 John W. Somerville 1957 William Bruce Williams 1957 Charles E. Allen ---- 1958 Linden Stanley Blue 1958 John A. Cassel 1958 Ronald Lawton Cheney 1958 Lt. Gen. Robert Edgar Cushman, Jr. 1958 John Frank Embersits 1958 Gary Woodson Howe 1958 Robert Willis Morey, Jr. 1958 John Fowler Pendexter 1958 Howard T. Phelan 1958 Russell Lee Post, Jr. 1958 John Louis Preston 1958 Robert Campbell Shackelford 1958 Thomas Beardsley Wheeler 1958 Stephen Adams ---- 1959 William Camp Bodman 1959 James Joseph Connors, III 1959 John Parick Cooke 1959 Alexander Tonio Ercklentz 1959 Erik Canfield Esselstyn 1959 James Tierney Hemphill 1959 John Holbrook, Jr. 1959 Charles C. Kingsley 1959 Richard Bissett Lightfoot 1959 Winston Lord 1959 Michael B. Mayor 1959 James Rockwell Sheffield 1959 Peter Andreas Thorson 1959 Cheever Tyler 1959 David George Ball ---- 1960 Frank Eastman Beane, Jr. Paul Capron III David DeWitt Dominick Frederick Vincent Ernst William Herrick Garnsey Robert F. Giegengack, Jr. David Doubleday Holbrook Richard Hugo Lindgren Peter A. Lusk Charles Edward McCarthy John Burgess Meek Robert Smitter Northrup Eugene Lytton Scott Bruce Donald Smith III George Thomas Bissell ---- 1961 Richard Charles Bockrath, Jr. William Carter Bowles, Jr. Thomas W. Clark John Marshall Cogswell John Phillip De Neufville Charles B. Hamlin Dale Alton Lindsay, Jr. Kenneth Mac Lean, Jr. Michael J. Pyle Thomas Bernard Ross George Wheeler Seeley Sextus Shearer Thomas Singleton II James C. Stewart Geoffrey Hamilton Waddell John Joseph Walsh, Jr. Samuel H. Back ---- 1962 John Henry Brandt James Henry Brewster IV Tristam Anthony Brooks Charles Bentley Burr II Henry Clay Childs Norman Victor Chimenti William Hamilton Henry Thompson Holland Ronald Eaton LeFevre Thomas B. Ligon Arthur John Peck, Jr. Robert W. Spitz Wyllys Terry III Bernard Benjamin Zucker Roger S. Ahlbrandt, Jr. ---- 1963 Peter Logan Becket Senator David Lyle Borne Jesse Loring Clay Charles Augustus Frank III Brendan Gill Michael Gates Gill Samuel Lawrence Gwin, Jr. Henry H. Hewitt William Lee Marsh Richard Eugene Moser William D. Nordhaus Timothy James O'Connell Jonathan Chapman Rose Patrick Rulon-Miller Geoffry Donald Charles Best ---- 1964 John Arthur Cirie Alexander Stephens Clay Samuel Hopkins Francis Howard Frank Gillette, Jr. Dennis Patrick Lynch Jonathan Evans Mc Bride Thomas Harrison Prindle Charles Alexander Pulaski, Jr. Eugene Van Loan John Smith Wilbur, Jr. Stephen Wolfe II Mehdi Raza Ali ---- 1965 Charles Edward Benoit, Jr. Gerald Holland Clark Stephen Edward Clark Timothy J. Clay Orde Musgrave Coombs Alan Lyle Corey III Peter Earl Desjardins Philip Jay Fetner Bengt M. Lagercrantz John Mercer Pinney Jeffrey Craig Pond James Perrin Quarles III John H.F. Shattuck Peter Franz Zallinger John R. Bockstoce ---- 1966 George Clifford Brown Alan W. Cross Michael Thomas Dalby Howard James Ernest John Forbes Kerry Forrest David Laidley Richard Warren Pershing David Mc Iver Rumsey Ronald Leonard Singer Frederick W. Smith William Burks Stanberry, Jr. David Hoadley Thorne Thomas Vargish Bernard Ikecukwu Afeoju ---- 1967 Victor Henderson Ashe Timothy Mc Fall Bradford Derek George Bush David John Foster Walter W. Garnsey, Jr. Robert McGregor Lilley James Whipple Miller H. Coleman Mitchell, Jr. Geoffrey Mark Neigher James Marshall Preston Davi Alan Richards James M. Sanon Bradford Curie Smith Roy Anthony Swil Stepehn Eberly Thompson, Jr. Roy Lesley Austin ---- 1968 Robert Richards Birge Christopher Walworth Brown George Walker Bush Kenneth Saul Cohen Rex William Cowdry Donald. Etra G. Gregory Gallico III Robert K. Guthrie III Bruton Ward Kolar Robert Davis Mc Callum, Jr. Muhammad Ahmed Saleh Thomas Carl Schmidt Donald Arthur Schollander Brinkley Stimpson Thorne Robert E. Arras, Jr ---- 1969 Michael Frederic Bouscaren Charles Henry Buck III Thomas Francis Cosgrove, Jr. Frank Edward Demares II Brian J. Dowling Henry W. Fuller Richard H.B. Livingston II B. Patrick Madden Wentworth Earl Miller John Joseph O 'Leary, Jr. Stephen Allen. Schwarzman Duane Arthur Selander William Mc Ilwaine Thompson, Jr. Douglas Preston Woodlock William Scott Brown ---- 1970 Philip Benham Case, Jr. Earl S. Downing III Lawrence L. Eyre Johnathan David Friedland Stephen David Greenberg Douglas Michael Hodes Terrence John Jackson Thomas Clairborne Miller Robert Mc Nair Morgan Kwaku Ohene - Frempong Daniel James Peters Thomas B. Scattergood Jonathan Penfield Thompson C. Christopher Trower James Anthony Babst ---- 1971 James Taylor Bryan Richard Henry Ekfelt James Vincent Feinerman Jeffrey Fortgang Michael Gerard Galvin Thomas M. Halpin Carols Arturo Hernandez Robert D. Inman William Theodore Kosturko Charles Herbert Levin James W. Morgan Edward Mac Arthur Noyes Thomas Prindle Taft Russell Joseph Cangelosi ---- 1972 Douglas Wells Clark Michael F. Csar Peter Seelye Evans Scott B. Fisher Mark Sanders Lewis Karl Evan Lutz Richard J. Mac Donald II Michael G. Mc Laren Douglas Richard Moyer Stephen G. Ritterbush, Jr. Richard Alan Salbeh Robert S. Walden Zebuon Vance Wilson Stan Warren Ziegler Alan Sidney Barasch ---- 1973 Tedric Lawrence Bellis C. Roger Finney Benjamin P. Green Philip Henry Highfill III Mark Christopher Huey Coit Redfearn Liles David B. Lonsdorf Stephen Joseph Mac Donald II Fred Walter Mattlin Stephen Joseph Mc Phee David Clement Moore William Iain Scott James Sothern Sulzer Richard Mason Barge ---- 1974 Jon Michael Bellis Larry R. Bisaro Robert Lewis Cohen David Michael Connors Peter C. Diamond Thomas James Doyle, Jr. Bruce Alan Eisenberg Timoteo F. Gonzalez George Emanuel Lewis Brian Cameron Murchison Wesley John Spear Charles Hedges McKinstry Thorne Alan Thompson Ashenfelter ---- 1975 Kenneth Arthur Bender Christopher Taylor Buckley James Eugene Burke III William Deshay English, Jr. Edwin Frank Gaines Rudolph Green Kenneth Malcolm Mac Kenzie Douglas Scott Reigeluth David Saffen Thomas Allen Struzzi Stephen George Wald Gregory Jannig Zorthian Robert William Blattner ---- 1976 John Kim Brubaker Douglas Daniel Capozzalo Christopher Dyson Casscells Starling Winston Childs Philip Turner Davies Donald Kenneth Fort Edward Raymond Gates Richard Channing Gibson, Jr. Dennis Charles Hart Miles Watson Leverett Arjay Singh Mehta Marc Jaime Morgenstern Clark Kimberly Oler, Jr. Darryl L. Williams Marvin Blakely ---- 1977 James Robert Brubaker Carnell Cooper Joel Richard Fredericks Richard Julius Goldberg William Cabell Grayson, Jr. Patrick William Lalley Quentin John Lawler Thomas Montgomery Newman David Bulkey Perry Stephen Rimar III Daniel Adam Schlesinger Larry Glenn Scott Chan Bruce Tom III Paul Berem Albritton ---- 1978 Mark R. Baran Keith Alan Bassi J. Bruce Clark Lawrence Maclester Gile Peter Samuel Holmes Noble Hook David Leonard Marinelli Samuel L. Owens Geoffrey D. Piel Robert John Rizzo John Marcus Roy Charles S. Sullivan Elvin D. Turner Robert Nelson Brown ---- 1979 Anthony O. Edozien John Arthur Fore Jeffrey Arthur Holmbee David Harold Lorenson Edward E. Mc Nally Jack Thomas Moses Kurt D. Nondorf Donald Patrick O' Brien Eric Brooks Peters Stephen Thomas Skrovan Charles Stevenson Richard H. Westerfield Daniel Richard Wilson James B. Yent, Jr. Samuel Monroe Austin ---- 1980 Maxwell O. Chibundu George Leovy Davenport Mark Samuel De Vore George Toby Dilworth Andrew T. Fleming John J. Hatem Gary Martin Lawrence Daniel Kevin Mulhern Elliot Remsen Peters Eric Eugene Stevens Joseph Benjamin Teig Timothy Michael Tumpane Lawrence John Zigerelli ---- 1981 Stanton B. Bullock Kimberly C. Campbell Mats Erik Carlsson Christopher James Choa Joseph Leo Conway, Jr. Thomas Allan Grandine David Gerard Novosel Regis James O' Keefe Kenneth Graham Peters Paul Clifford Peterson Richard George Russell Karl Eric Staven Daniel James Stratton Douglas Stuart Tingey Alexander Troy James Edward Bass ---- 1982 Jonathan Breslau Gregory James Burkus Gavin Elliott Campbell Michael William Devlin Frederick Anthony Leone William Andrew Mc Afee Bryan Fitch Meyers Robert W. Murchison David Isaiah Rachlin Jasper Reid Mark Joseph Salzman Eddie Sanhago Jonathan David Towers William Henry Wright II James Ting-Yeh Yang Peter Mark Abrams ---- 1983 Peter Moody Brooks Michael Ernest Cerveris Richard David Franklin Frederick Scott Gale Michael John Montesano III Christopher Noel Carlos Pinela Jonathan Douglas Sharp John Van Loon Sheffield Victor Edmond Wagner Paul James Andrie ---- 1984 Earl Gilbert Graves, Jr. Douglas Robert Henston David Nathaniel Herskovits Edward Scott Lambert David Geoffrey Litt Steven Alan Skibell Conzalo Urquijo Adam Weinstein Stephen Wiseman II John Chipman Farrar ---- 1985 James Emanuel Boasberg William John Carr Carlin Jr. Ashok Jai Chandrasekhar Scott David Frankel Jay Alan Grossman Wei-Tai Kwok Peter Barnes Lindy Timothy Charles Misner Steven Terner Mnu Chin James Gerard Petela Richard Hart Powers Morgan Robert Smock Horace Dutton Taft Gregory Allan Thomson Kevin Sanchez Walsh ************************************************************************

VENTICIDE
IS
PITTSBURGH'S
#1
EXPORT!

About 80% of US
have permanently injured
(or destroyed) our bodies,
because
"our" news media
told US to do so
...
In the same way,
most of US
have watched our
viable (if not healthy)
loved ones get hideously
tortured to death
(since 1963/1968),
via contrived
"brain death",
followed by vital
organ$ harvesting
(without anesthesia).
...
Per the former,
all you can do is
get no more mRNA jabs
(damage is done)
...
Per the latter,
all you can do is
get the complete
medical records
(every single day)
the very second that
you hear the words
mechanical ventilator.

Cindy K Chung
seals/destroys
pertinent
incriminating
medical records.

TO WIT

To understand how
YOUR doctor can
keep their mouth shut
about medical terrorism,
see the videos
below...

Bing liu knew
what I just told
YOU,

which is why
you'll never learn
of Bing's
"breakthrough",
until you find out
the hard way
(when it's too late).

Having been a pre-med
Biochemistry major
at PITT in the early
1970s,
I explained to Bing Liu
the methodology of
medical kidnap/murder
(via mechanical hyper-
ventilation/organ$ harvest),
especially in the healthy
(with healthy vital organ$)
...
My first of two
discussions with Bing
was 2/6/2020, which was
6 days before the
USIC-gaslighted video
(shown above, by Mutahar)
was published.