>Там пруфов нет

>the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, United States Senate

>STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. MILLER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; ACCOMPANIED BY BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM S. AUGERSON, ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; AND LT. COL. GEORGE A. CARRUTH, STAFF OFFICER, CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL DEFENSE DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS AND PLANS

>The records indicate that there were 19 tests. Nineteen tests conducted in public domain using biological simulants

>Senator Kennedy. We are not talking about the military installa- tions, we are talking about public domain in those areas. How many did you say were conducted?

>Colonel Carruth. Ninteen, sir.

>A test in San Francisco was to determine whether or not an enemy could conduct a biological attack at sea and infect the population of our cities. I might say that with the simulants used, and the San Francisco test was done in 1950, the evidence that was available at that time in- dicated that both simulants, both Serratia marcenscens and Bacillus gloMgii, were nonpathogenic. Since they were simulants, we did not expect to find any effect on the human population.

>Senator Schweiker. I have an article, which I guess by now you are more than familiar with, which appeared in the AMA Archives of Internal Medicine in 1951, called Iniection Due to Chromobacteria, by Dr. Wheat and others. And going back to the same time frame of the San Francisco testing that you just described, it calls to the attention of the medical profes- sion some 11 cases of infection with the SM organism, which is the same organism that you used in that test. It goes on to say, in essence—I do not want to characterize too much the wording—but basically the authors are reporting what they con- sider to be a very unusual numerical outbreak of SM infection in the hospital. One person died.

>What 1 am confused about, and what deeply troubles me, is here is an American Medical Association journal art- icle which obviously indicates some danger signals. Here is the Fort Detrick safety officer, who is obviously concerned—and I appreciate your bringing that out. That was in l952. Yet the Army kept on using this same material at least up through l968.

>you ran these tests up through l968, some l6 years after the Fort Detrick safety officer had determined he felt there was a serious problem and l7 years after the AMA article said they caused a death.

><...>

>пруфов нет