Ever Been Part Of A Failed Work Experiment Which Was Conducted By Unethical Therapists

What are the most inhumane experiments ever conducted?

UNIT 731! Google it now if you have a brave heart. I dont know if this has been a top secret but this was during World War 2. At least 12,000 men, women, and children were murdered during the experimentation conducted by Unit 731 at the camp based in Pingfang alone. Pure Evil: Wartime Japanese Doctor Had No Regard for Human SufferingThere was even Some Movies about this happening, The title was ‘’Men Behind the Sun’’. And it’s somehow a Trilogy, just go watch it if you have a strong heart and strong minded one cause its gonna be gory.Here are some the things done to most Chinese and Russian Prisoners.Prisoners of war were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia. Vivisections were performed on prisoners after infecting them with various diseases.Scientists performed invasive surgery on prisoners, removing organs to study the effects of disease on the human body. These were conducted while the patients were alive because it was feared that the decomposition process would affect the results.Human targets were used to test grenades positioned at various distances and in different positions. Flame throwers were tested on humans.Humans were tied to stakes and used as targets to test germ-releasing bombs, chemical weapons, and explosive bombs. Prisoners were injected with inoculations of disease, disguised as vaccinations, to study their effects.Prisoners were infested with fleas in order to acquire large quantities of disease-carrying fleas for the purposes of studying the viability of germ warfare.Here are some disturbing images, Im not sure if its real or not but its just really disturbing. CHECK OUT: How prisoners of war were dissected ALIVE by Japanese scientists in sick experiments21 Real Life Horrifying Pictures That Will Give You Nightmares For DaysThe fact that the whole team and doctor’s behind all the experiments didn’t even go to jail. The Us wants all of the data they have in exchange for their freedom as was criminals.See more: 35 rare images of the infamous Japanese experiment unit 731 in China

How does a therapist handle explicit sexual content from a client?

Almost all thoughts and feelings are welcome in therapy and a person’s sexual nature and/or behavior can be a problem like anything else. Fetishes, ED, submissives, a Dominatrix — I have drawn pictures of the vagina, and explained to inexperienced men how to pleasure a woman and what happens in her vagina when she is excited. I’ve done the same for women who have no experience with men. Once, years ago, I even got down on the floor to show a couple how he could enter her in a way that allowed him to be able to hold his penis at the same time so he could stay inside.Sex and life go together. I’ve never had a problem listening. If a patient became sexually/romantically attracted to me, we’d talk about about it. I’m not afraid of what they think and feel (or what they think they feel), and I’ve never crossed that boundary or even thought of it. Do no harm. That comes first.Total truth? Once, years ago, a very handsome patient began to tell me that he loved me—and finished up by saying he loved me like a mother. Ouch! His mother? Dazzling me?The one that slipped by me: Last year a guy called about sex therapy. He was asking me about whether I had handled problems like his, when I realized he was masturbating as we spoke., and that he had called me once years ago and did the same thing. So I said so—you’re masturbating. He didn’t deny it. Rather, he apologized. I nicely told him he couldn’t use the time that way, and I was going to hang up. I hung up.

Is it ethical to have scientific experiments on humans? Why/why not?

Yes, and to me the key issues are:1. Consent2. Being informed of the risks and agreeing to the risks.3. Holding those conducting the experiments not legally liable for the outcome, if negative.Let’s say my family member has the beginning signs of Alzheimer's. There is right now ongoing research using light therapy to stimulate the brain to produce gamma wave oscillations (Unique visual stimulation may be new treatment for Alzheimer’s ). It is just in the beginning stages of development and likely there will be trials.I would absolutely try to get my family member to participate in these experimental trials, if they agreed to it. I don’t see harm done by this therapy, it is noninvasive, and I think the risks are low.But what if the risks of scientific and untried experiments on humans were likely higher?One of my acquaintances’ husband had glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer. There is no cure for glioblastoma — it is a terminal diagnosis. That man chose to undergo an experimental form of treatment because he felt he had little to lose and he was willing to take the risks.If someone completely and fully understands the risks inherent to submitting to scientific experiments and consents to them, while also agreeing legally to hold the researchers harmless, then the ethical issues to me are mitigated.

What are the top 10 failed psychology experiments? Have you heard of an experiment that didn't produce the results expected, an experiment that went wrong, or an experiment that got shutdown due to legalities or potential risks on test subjects?

The Monster StudyWendell Johnson from the University of Iowa conducted a  stuttering experiment on 22 orphan children in 1939. The children were  put in four control and experimental groups. Half of the kids were  given praises and compliments on their fluency of speech, and negative  feed backs to the other half by belittling them for even tiny speech  imperfections. Children in experimental groups were also constantly told  that they were stutterers. The result? Many children, if not all, in  experimental groups that received negative therapy suffered negative  psychological effects and even retained speech problems throughout their  lives. The experiment was very disturbing and considered a failure by Johnson's  peers as it was pretty inhumane to conduct such a lifelong damaging  experiment to orphan children.Despite the researcher's good intentions, the study fails on any number of ethical dimensions.The children were never told they had been involved in a study, until it was revealed by a newspaper over 60 years later.The teachers and administrators of the orphanage were also misled  about the purpose of the study. This deception was never explained to  them.The study was never published. Because of this some argue the damage  inflicted on the children was even more unethical. All studies must  balance the potential risks against the potential benefits. Without  publication and dissemination through the academic community, this  study's benefits are reduced.UPDATE: Six participants in this study have just won a £500,000 settlement against the University of Iowa.The ‘Monster Study’ on Stuttering

Has vaccine safety been proven in placebo-controlled clinical trials? If so, where can I find the data?

Here we go. These are the type of strawman "questions" that are actually used to discredit vaccines. It's part of the logical fallacy of the "Argument from ignorance ," which is essentially based on the belief that if something has been proven false, it must be true.Any intelligent, well-versed individual who understands how clinical trials would work would absolutely understand the ethics of vaccine clinical trials. It is impossible to set up an ethical trial that deprives half of the participants from receiving a life saving vaccine. No Institutional Review Board would approve it. The FDA would not approve it. And the 95% of parents who do vaccinate would be appalled. Here would be the conversation between a parent whose child might be vaccinated with a placebo:Doctor–your child has a 50/50 chance of getting an injection that is worthless.Parent–Go F yourself. I want the vaccine.Something like that.But let's say the ethics of the medical world are adjusted to the immorality of the antivaccination cult. We don't care about children, so we're going to subdivide them into two groups.To have a real double blinded vaccine trial, of course an anti-vaccine parent would have the same choice–50/50 chance of the child receiving a real vaccine. They'd refuse. So what we would have is a skewed population of just vaccinating parents in the trial. Worthless data.That is why we have this wonderful field of medicine called epidemiology. We can construct studies using data in the past that isolate confounding data from real data, and determine the safety and efficacy of vaccines. And guess what? It's overwhelming.To understand these studies, one needs a real background in statistics, public health, immunology, epidemiology, microbiology, and a few other fields. It takes hard work to do a real epidemiological study, and it takes a bit of time, if you're a real scientist, to understand the results.So, this strawman argument that "we've never done a double blind study" is ridiculous, and is posited on an assumption that we lack ethics in medicine. Meh.The one vaccine clinical trial design to rule them all