December 1, 2012 - The Constantine Report    
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading

The Recipe Behind the Papa John’s Scandal

This is a modified py-6 that occupies the entire horizontal space of its parent.

By Ebony Grimsley (excerpt)

NewsOne for Black America,

John Schnatter, CEO of Papa John’s, first came under attack after his address to shareholders in August. What wasn’t meant to be a public declaration of being against the Affordable Healthcare Act as introduced under the administration of President Barack Obama, turned into a discussion gaining a lot of confusion and animosity towards the pizza chain. John proclaimed in August that, “We’re not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry. But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare.” The Politico article containing words from the call went on to include the company would use tactics to protect its shareholders. In the same call John went on to say, “Our best estimate is that the Obamacare will cost 11 to 14 cents per pizza, or 15 to 20 cents per order from a corporate basis.”

Now for the general public who sees that Schnatter was a huge donor and supporter of the Republican Presidential Candidate, Governor Mitt Romney, they can equate the use of his term of Obamacare and his personal support to mean an attack on policies and lack of consideration to employees. However, I do not believe this is where John went wrong. Stick with me, I’ll show you where his words started to bite him.

After the shareholders meeting, Papa John’s announced its NFL promotion to giveaway 2 million pizzas.

•    Schnatter says that franchises will more than likely reduce employee hours. This news reignited the public spurring a boycott of Papa John’s.

I do not believe that it is the concern of people who support the healthcare act or not, that is really driving the criticism, it’s the simple math of it all. … Instead of clarifying the company’s position, he left individuals to ask the question, ”why raise the rates and give away pizzas if you still intend to not provide healthcare to your employees and reduce their income?” …

What really draws my interest as a media professional to his original statement to the shareholders, is that if he had used words to not draw an emotional response to government policy, increasing the price of the pizza would have been forgotten after it was implemented. …

John Schnatter really has only one thing left to do at this point in his crisis, slice up and eat some humble pie. Here is what I recommend:

•    John needs to make one final and clarifying statement on the topic of how his company will handle healthcare as it concerns his employees.

•    His final statement should be either pro-customer or pro-employee. If he has paid attention to the comments, he would realize that none have been highlighted as saying, the public will not pay the extra cents so others can have health insurance. Either way, he needs to make one final statement and stop discussing it from various angles. The inconsistency is not sitting well with customers.

•    The company needs to focus on publicly highlighting their mission to their employees and to the customers. Ensuring to the public, a business that started off small, can still relate to the working class (his demographic).

•    Until this is completed, the emphasis on giving away 2 million pizzas needs to simmer in the oven before serving it back to the public. (Pun intended.)

•    This should all be done before the boycott gets legs and runs away too far for him to fix.

What do you think? How has the Papa John’s discussion played out among your family members, friends or business associates? Above all, please walk away with this reminder to not incorporate political emotions into your company’s public stance.

Excerpt from “The Ugly Canadian Digs In,” by Yves  Engler,, 21 Nov 2012

‘Building the Canadian Advantage’

.. As part of their promotion of voluntary efforts the government launched Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector. In October 2009 they established an Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor with a $620,000 budget to probe complaints about abuses committed by Canadian companies in poor countries. But, the Counsellor could not intervene — let alone take any remedial action — without agreement from the company accused of abuse.

By late 2011 the Toronto-based CSR Counsellor’s office had received only two complaints, noted, “one of which was dropped because the mining corporation chose not to undergo the voluntary investigation.”

The person [Conservative Party Trade Minister] Stockwell Day appointed as the initial CSR Counsellor, Marketa Evans, was the founding director of the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Established with funding from Peter Munk, chairman and founder of Barrick Gold, the billionaire maintained significant influence over the Centre with its director reporting to a board set up by the Munk family. Munk espoused far-right political views. He defended Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and virulently attacked Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. In a March 2011 Globe and Mail interview he dismissed criticism of Barrick’s security force in Papua New Guinea, which led Norway’s pension fund to divest from the company, by claiming “gang rape is a cultural habit” in that country.

Full story:

 By Ilana Yurkiewicz

Scientific American, November 15, 2012

Dr. Hans Reiter

In 1977, a group of doctors began a campaign to change the name of an inflammatory arthritis after discovering it was named after a Nazi doctor who planned and performed gruesome forced human experimentation that killed thousands. In one of these experiments, for example, Hans Conrad Julius Reiter inoculated Buchenwald concentration camp inmates with the microbe causing typhus, resulting in the deaths of over 250 people. The inflammatory arthritis then known as “Reiter’s syndrome,” the group of doctors suggested, should change its name to “reactive arthritis.”

That was in 1977. In 2000, Dr. Daniel J. Wallace and Dr. Michael Weisman published a paper rekindling old requests to remove Reiter’s name from the syndrome. Shortly after, the patient advocacy group Spondylitis Association of America voted to approve the name change. In 2003, a group of rheumatology journal editors decided against continued use of the eponym in their journals. The official retraction from the doctors who originally proposed the eponym came in 2009.

Sadly, the story is still not over.

The campaign to remove Reiter’s name should not actually have been morally ambiguous. Medical eponyms are meant to honor individuals who contributed to the field. Torture and murder are not things we wish to honor. After the war, a profound ethical debate sprung from the question of what to do with discoveries that came about from forced experimentation on human beings without their consent. But the question of the medical eponym does not fall into that category. Up for debate was not whether we should keep or discard useful medical information obtained through grossly immoral means. All medical information discovered would still be known. All that was asked is that the result was not named to reward a criminal. As the physicians who wrote the retraction summarized their reasoning:

“Medicine is a moral enterprise. Physicians serve to promote the welfare of their patients. Hans Reiter was a Nazi war criminal responsible for heinous atrocities that violated the precepts of humanity, ethics, and professionalism. We see no acceptable rationale to preserve any professional memory of Reiter within our medical culture, except as a symbol of what our societal values obligate us to reject.”


The difficult part, it turned out, was not making the moral call but implementing it. The New York Times reported on the Reiter scandal in 2000, writing: “The precise steps needed to get rid of an eponym are unclear and vary with who uses them.” A 2005 analysis found that medical journal use of the eponym without mentioning its disfavored used dropped from 57% in 1998 to 34% in 2003. One interpretation is that these figures are encouraging; use of the eponym, after all, is decreasing. But considering that the campaign to change the name began in 1977, is a less than 50% drop over the first twenty years really such tremendous progress? Moreover, the study showed that change in the US was particularly slow, with US authors more likely to use the eponym than authors in Europe.

Since then, other medical eponyms tied to Nazi crimes have surfaced. The “Clara cell,” a type of cell lining the airways to the lungs, was named after Max Clara, an “active and outspoken Nazi” who made his discovery using tissues from murdered Third Reich victims. Then there is Friedrich Wegner of the vessel disease “Wegener’s granulomatosis”: Wegener joined the brownshirts eight months before Hitler seized power, joined the Nazi party in 1933, worked in “close proximity to the genocide machinery in Lodz,” and was wanted as a war criminal.

As a medical student in 2012, here is what I have learned. I have heard “reactive arthritis,” but I have also learned about “Reiter’s syndrome.” I have learned about the Clara cell, without any qualification of its tainted name. I have learned about Wegener’s granulomatosis: this one was given with a qualification of its tainted history, but then in group discussion, the eponym was the norm. Immediately after doctors used it, it stuck with the students.

What this shows is that even an official retraction is not enough to change terminology that is deeply engrained. First impressions set the tone. Changing language takes more than official notification. It takes proactive, universal involvement. It takes a decision, and sticking to it. It takes a community, setting an example.

Reactive arthritis/Reiter’s syndrome

So, here is my humble request to doctors: please introduce these terms without their Nazi affiliations. If a tainted term has had another one substituted, please, just use the newer term. You can mention its former name and reasons for discontinued use, so that students may still recognize it if others refer to it. But from there after, make the newer term the norm. The norms of language follow from how terms are introduced.

Hans Reiter, responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of innocent people, was able to work and enjoy life until the age of 88. His crimes against humankind can never be erased. The least we can do is erase any praise of him and others like him. Saying their actions were deeply antithetical to the values of modern medicine is an understatement.

It takes a community to shape language. For the victims, and to make a statement against human rights abuses, I hope we can make it happen.

About the Author: Ilana Yurkiewicz is a second year student at Harvard Medical School who graduated from Yale University with a B.S. in biology. She was a science reporter for The News & Observer in Raleigh, North Carolina via the AAAS Mass Media Fellowship and then went on to write for Science Progress in Washington, DC. She has an academic interest in bioethics, currently conducting ethics research at Harvard after previously interning at the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.  Follow on Twitter @ilanayurkiewicz.More »The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

By David Kolb

The Muskegon Chronicle, November 26, 2012

If your intelligence isn’t insulted by the phony posturing of Republicans over the Benghazi tragedy, with their rain barrels of crocodile tears and pretend outrage for the dead, then you may not have any intelligence to insult.

Personally, I thought the GOP would slink away and manufacture a more plausible crazy conspiracy about President Barack Obama then the one they have concocted implicating him in the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans this past Sept. 11 in Libya.

In this July 18, 2011 file photo, Gen. David Petraeus, then top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, salutes during a changing of command ceremony from Petraeus to Gen. John Allen in Kabul, Afghanistan. Petraeus recently testified about the Benghazi tragedy.AP FILE PHOTO

Stevens died of smoke inhalation after attackers, presumably terrorists connected to al-Qaida, set the U.S. consulate on fire.  Information officer Sean Smith died in the attack’s first stages.  Former Navy SEALS Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed defending the Central Intelligence Agency annex.

Certainly, I thought Republicans would try a new ploy after ex-Gen. David Petraeus exploded the major GOP-inspired myth of Benghazi.  The general, in congressional testimony under oath, said the White House was innocent of authoring a disinformation campaign to hide the salient facts from the public.

Alas, you could go broke betting on Republicans to show some class or do the right thing.

Petraeus, the former chief of allied forces in Afghanistan and most recently director of the Central Intelligence Agency, even while mired in the midst of his own personal disgrace, wouldn’t stoop so low as to exploit the deaths of fellow patriots.

Yet no bar is set too low for the radical right.

As the Party of No would have you believe, Obama and his henchmen in the State Department suborned murder and terror in Benghazi, masterminding a dastardly plan to deny Mitt Romney’s noble bid to become America’s first billionaire CEO president.

It’s a good thing voters understand Romney himself was responsible for his own very timely political destruction.

Going beyond insulting minorities, intimidating women, gay-bashing and threatening Latinos with “self-deportation,” Romney trolled the political gutter when, only hours after the attack on our personnel in Libya, he sought to politicize their deaths before the corpses of these heroes were even cold.

If you remember the original conspiracy theory put forth by Republicans, then you’ll remember Petraeus wasn’t even supposed to testify.  You see, the GOP figured all that extra-marital rumpus was part of the plan allegedly designed to put the kibosh on the general.

Typical of that mindset was well-known Fox News “Senior Judicial Analyst” Andrew Napolitano who wrote, “The evidence that Gen. David Petraeus … was forced to resign from the CIA to silence him is far stronger than is the version of events that the Obama administration has given us.”

But Petraeus did testify!

And what he told congressional leaders supported Obama’s repeated assurances that the public had been provided with the best available information at the time.

So I guess the fairy tale has to change now to explain Petraeus’ betrayal of the right.

You can ask yourself all day why Republicans are all fast and furious in their denunciation of the Obama administration and the State Department.

You still will not come up with any real answer, since it is all blue smoke and broken mirrors.   The GOP will spin you around like a top on the table trying to come up with a plausible answer.

One thing they won’t want to explain are their cuts to embassy security around the world prior to the Benghazi attack.  The attack succeeded, by the way, because there wasn’t adequate security to defend the consulate there.

The Drudge Report, not exactly a left wing website, ran this report on Oct. 12:“For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s worldwide security protection program — well below the $2.15  billion requested by the Obama Administration.

“House Republicans,” Drudge went on, “cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.  (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.)  Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be ‘detrimental to America’s national security’ — a charge Republicans rejected.”

Damning.  This is Drudge!  Democrats should be screaming this from the rooftops.

The solitary thread on which the GOP is hanging its fake outrage is the explanation that United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice originally put forth for the Benghazi attack.

But her early account of the attack was based on the initial intelligence community assessments and was always subject to review and updates.

Nevertheless, the Republicans, having failed to get anything on Obama and Clinton, want Rice’s scalp now for having misspoke — even though she did nothing wrong and acted completely within agency protocol.

So what the whole Benghazi charade has boiled down to is Republicans deep in their tantrum over semantics — adjectives, nouns, verbs — that the party claims is proof of  some conspiracy for which they have no smoking gun.

Shameless.  Brazen.  Disgusting.  There are few more apt words describing this smear campaign.  But they are best applied to the GOP.

By Lucette Lagnado

Wall Street Journal, November 30, 2012

Every year since 1963, the Space Medicine Association has given out the Hubertus Strughold Award to a top scientist or clinician for outstanding work in aviation medicine.

The prestigious 50-year-old prize is named in honor of the man known as the “Father of Space Medicine,” revered for his contributions to America’s early space program. The German émigré, who made Texas his home after World War II, is credited with work that helped American astronauts walk on the moon.

But it is what he allegedly did during the war that has fueled a bitter controversy.

Nearly 70 years after the end of World War II, the scientific community is still fractured over the legacy of Nazi science—a conflict underscored by the clash over the Strughold prize.

Dr. Strughold, a former scientist for the Third Reich, was listed as one of 13 “persons, firms or organizations implicated” in some notorious Dachau concentration camp experiments, according to a 1946 memo by the staff of the Nuremberg Trials. The document referenced the infamous hypothermia, or “cold experiments,” in which inmates were used, and typically died, as subjects exposed to freezing conditions.

For years, former colleagues and disciples have defended him, saying there was no evidence to conclude he engaged in atrocities. Other space scientists have argued that his involvement in Hitler’s war machine should prevent any honors, including the eponymous prize, from being named for him.

He was never tried at Nuremberg. In America, the U.S. Justice Department investigated him at several junctures but never found sufficient grounds for prosecution.

Dr. Strughold headed a major aviation research lab in Nazi Germany before coming to the U.S. where he helped shape the space program.

During in his lifetime, Dr. Strughold himself repeatedly denied any involvement in the Dachau experiments or other atrocities. He told a Nuremberg investigator that he knew about the cold experiments but disapproved of such tests on nonvolunteers.

“I have always forbidden even the thought of such experiments in my Institute, firstly on moral grounds and secondly on grounds of medical ethics,” he is quoted as saying in this Nuremberg report. His immediate family members are deceased.

Dr. Strughold, who died in 1986, became a revered figure in American science. He built an impressive career, helping to develop the first pressurized space craft cabin that made manned space flights possible. Doctors and scientists in the emerging field of space medicine looked to him as a mentor and some affectionately called him by his nickname, “Struggie.” They have remained loyal, despite allegations about his past.

To his defenders, Dr. Strughold was a “pure scientist.” His legacy, they say, was to ultimately help America beat the Soviets to the moon.

“I certainly didn’t have the feeling that he was a great deceiver,” says Dr. Charles Berry, 89, a veteran of the U.S. space program who received the Strughold award in 1967. He strenuously backs Dr. Strughold, whom he came to know in the early days of the space program. “He would sit and talk to you and tell you about any of the subjects you were concerned about,” says Dr. Berry.

But as more evidence surfaced in recent years about Dr. Strughold’s wartime activities—including the disclosure by German scholars that his institute in Berlin had conducted experiments on young children from a psychiatric asylum—the doctors, scientists and astronauts who inhabit the rarefied world of space and aviation medicine have become embroiled in an anguished debate.

[image]At Dachau, an inmate being subjected to high-altitude conditions.

“He was not a war criminal,” says Dr. Mark Campbell, a former president of the Space Medicine Association. “We would not have been where we are in space medicine without Strughold,” he adds.

Dr. Strughold’s critics argue that a scientific organization like SMA has no business awarding a prize that honors a man who held a senior position in the Third Reich and was possibly complicit in some of its crimes.

“I never thought that you could prosecute Strughold, but that doesn’t mean you have an award in his name,” says Professor Robert Proctor of Stanford University, an authority on Nazi-era medicine.

Dr. Russell Rayman, a former Executive Director of the Aerospace Medical Association—an umbrella group that includes the SMA—has lobbied over the years to have the award stripped of the name. He offers a more stark appraisal. Dr. Strughold, he says, “was part of a big killing machine.”

The ravages of World War II left the world trying to grapple with the enormity of the crimes that were committed, and pondering how to punish their perpetrators. The Nuremberg Trials, which took place after the war, were intended to bring to justice the worst offenders, including doctors. Major corporations tried to come clean about their business relationships with Hitler’s regime.

While the U.S. Justice Department has shrunk its Nazi-hunting arm in recent years, and prosecutions dwindled as suspected war criminals aged and died, roughly a half-dozen cases remain active. Meanwhile, historians and scholars, including many in Germany, continue to probe relentlessly into the country’s dark scientific past.

Prof. Proctor believes that the dispute over the Strughold prize is analogous to a larger debate over what researchers call “eponyms”—conditions named after their discoverers. Several disorders and diseases were first identified by German scientists who worked for the Reich and yet still bear their names.

“What do we do with the legacy of Nazi knowledge? How do you honor or dishonor Nazi achievements and Nazi crimes?” asks Professor Proctor.

He cites the example of Dr. Josef Mengele, the notorious Auschwitz physician known as the Angel of Death. Prior to the war, Dr. Mengele had been an avid researcher. “Is it legitimate to say, ‘for more on cleft palates, see Mengele, J., 1937’? ” he asks.

The Dachau “cold” immersion experiments—whose brutality stood out even in the context of Nazi crimes—have long been a subject of discord in scientific circles. Some have argued the experiments were of no value, so flawed as to be useless. Others have said that despite the horrific means used to obtain the data, the information could still be useful.

Nazi doctors submerged prisoners in freezing water to gauge ways to help downed pilots survive. Dr. Strughold’s knowledge of, and possible involvement in,  this type of experiment is the subject of intense debate.

There is no question, says Professor Robert Pozos, a hypothermia expert at San Diego State University, that the Dachau data seeped into scientific circles after the War, and was referenced in multiple scientific journals.

Dr. Strughold headed a major aviation research lab in Nazi Germany before coming to the U.S. where he helped shape the space program.

The conflict over Dr. Strughold began with a single, cryptic remark he made at a conference during the war—a statement that has been studied, analyzed, parsed and dissected by scientists, historians and Nazi hunters for years.

During the war, Dr. Strughold was director of the Aeromedical Research Institute in Berlin, a prominent research facility under the Luftwaffe, the German air force. In that capacity, he attended a 1942 medical conference in Germany. The highlight of the top secret meeting was a presentation on hypothermia or “cold” experiments that were performed on human beings; they were prisoners of the Dachau concentration camp.

The subject was of intense interest to Hitler’s war effort. Germany was losing pilots who were shot down in the frigid seas of Northern Europe. Could they be rescued? What would it take to save them?

At Dachau, doctors submerged inmates, some in full pilot gear, in icy water tanks or else forced them to remain naked in frigid temperatures for hours. Their vital signs were monitored and they were observed for how long it took them to die. Some were exposed to scalding temperatures to see if they could be “rewarmed” back to life. Most suffered agonizing pain, and an unknown number perished. The Dachau “cold” experiments became an emblem of the cruelty of Nazi medicine.

In minutes from the “Cold” conference, Dr. Strughold was recorded as saying:

“With regard to the experimental scientific research, but also for the orientation of the Sea Distress service, it is of interest to know what temperatures are to be counted on in the oceans concerned during the various seasons.”

Critics of Dr. Strughold and his award argue that his participation at the conference shows, at a minimum, that he was aware of some of the most perverse activities of the Third Reich.

Eli Rosenbaum, a senior human rights prosecutor at the Justice Department who heads its Nazi-hunting program, believes that “Hubertus Strughold encouraged the perpetrators of the now-infamous Dachau concentration camp freezing experiments” or at least signaled “the possible necessity of such repetition,” he says. Mr. Rosenbaum is a 30-year veteran of the agency’s Nazi-hunting arm.

David Marwell, a former Justice Department historian, recalls investigating Dr. Strughold back in the 1980s for the Nazi-hunting arm and being struck by the significance of his comment at the “Cold” conference.

“We know that he was present when results of the experiments were reported and that he made suggestions that could be interpreted as intended to make the experiments more useful and precise. He didn’t stand up and leave or say this is outrageous,” says Mr. Marwell, now director of the Museum of Jewish Heritage in Lower Manhattan.

After the War, the “Cold” conference minutes were featured prominently in the Nuremberg Trials. General Telford Taylor, the chief prosecutor, cited them in his opening statement, calling the Dachau experiments “sickening crimes.

Dr. Viktor Harsch, a German physician and author of a friendly biography of Dr. Strughold, says that while the scientist may have known about the Dachau experiments, the comment he made at the conference was very “general” and he doesn’t believe it was necessarily related to human experiments.

There were a number of topics discussed, he says, and the remark could have been about “meteorological,” or weather, conditions. Dr. Strughold never joined the Nazi party, he points out, and “it was not in his nature” to support human experiments.

Other German authorities on Nazi medicine emphatically disagree. “He was sitting in the Luftwaffe ministry, he was the director of the Medical Research Institute—he knew exactly what was going on at Dachau,” says Dr. Wolfgang Eckart, a professor at the University of Heidelberg and the author of a new book on Nazi-era medicine.

“A lot of people were not in the Nazi party,” Dr. Eckart contends. “What is most important is what they did—what was their work for the Nazis?”

Adds Dr. Yehezkel Caine, a member of the aerospace medical group who wants the award eliminated, declares: “there is no way on this planet that anyone of Strughold’s stature could have been where he was without being complicit.”

Within the last decade, German scholars found that at least one set of human experiments—involving children—took place inside Dr. Strughold’s own institute. The experiments were also confirmed by his biographer.

In 1943, half a dozen children 11 to 13 years old were taken from a nearby psychiatric facility known as Brandenburg-Goerden and brought over to the Institute. Once there, the children, most of whom had epilepsy, were subjected to “hypoxia,” or oxygen deprivation experiments. They were placed in an altitude chamber and administered lower levels of oxygen to see if the conditions would trigger seizures.

In a book on Nazi medical practices between 1927-1945, author Hans-Walter Schmuhl, a German scholar, recounted in detail those experiments, explaining how the tests had initially begun on rabbits. He described how Dr. Strughold had several “vacuum chambers” and the children were subjected to experiments that simulated altitudes of nearly 20,000 feet. The children survived the research, which didn’t end up triggering seizures—so the undertaking was deemed a scientific failure.

Even so, Dr. Schmuhl wrote that the scientists “knew from the animal experiments that young epileptic rabbits reacted…with violent, often fatal convulsions” and they “expected (and hoped) that the children would react like the rabbits.”

Dr. Harsch says it is unclear whether Dr. Strughold authorized the experiments. But he was in charge, he acknowledges, and therefore bore responsibility for what happened. Brandenburg-Goerden was a center for euthanizing mentally ill patients and other so-called undesirables, including children. Their bodies were disposed of in a nearby crematorium.

Dr. Harsch, who heads the history committee at the German Society for Air and Space Medicine, says he informed his colleagues in 2004 about the experiments on children—a revelation that prompted them to eliminate the Strughold award they had given out since the 1970s.

Back in America, one by one, honors that had been heaped upon Dr. Strughold for his contributions to the space program have been discontinued as a cloud descended over his name. Brooks Air Force Base had named a library for him in 1977, but decided to remove Dr. Strughold’s name in 1995 after Jewish groups raised objections. At Ohio State University, his image, part of a glass mural of medical luminaries like Marie Curie, was removed.

But the SMA remained loyal. It has continued to hand out the Strughold Award at a special luncheon held every spring.

Responding to pressure from some of its own members over the award, the association launched an investigation into the matter in 2006, says Dr. Campbell, a former president. He and some colleagues examined the allegations against Dr. Strughold and pored through U.S. and German government records.

“Our response was, he was not a Nazi, he was not a war criminal, and no, we’re not going to take his name off the award,” Dr. Campbell says. That remains the association’s position, he says, unless new evidence links him to atrocities.

Professor Eckart vehemently disagrees, saying the experiments on children were evidence of the kind of work performed at Dr. Strughold’s institute. The children were “institutionalized patients,” says Dr. Eckart, with no way to give consent. “These experiments were clearly criminal—the risk to the children was recklessly disregarded.”

Following The Wall Street Journal’s inquiries, both the Space Medicine Association and its umbrella organization, the Aerospace Medical Association, say they are now rethinking the Strughold award. The larger group, which is affiliated with the American Medical Association, stresses that the Space Medicine branch operates independently.

“Why defend him?” says Dr. Stephen Véronneau, a member of both groups. “I can’t find another example in the world of honoring Dr. Strughold except my own association.”

During a meeting on Nov. 14, Dr. Campbell made an appeal to uphold the award; Dr. Rayman countered that Dr. Strughold’s known activities on behalf of Hitler’s war machine made him unworthy.

The children’s experiments were not mentioned. When contacted by the Journal, Jeff Sventek, the aerospace association’s executive director, said the information was new to him.

Dr. Campbell, who was aware of the experiments, says that while wrong and inappropriate, they were “fairly benign.”

“I don’t defend these experiments,” he says. “The question is did Strughold know” about the research. “Just because it was in the chamber in his institute doesn’t mean he knew about it,” he says.

Dr. Campbell is considering one solution: changing the award’s name—but only if there is an agreement stating categorically that Dr. Strughold wasn’t a Nazi or a war criminal.

That isn’t likely to satisfy critics like Professor Proctor. “You can’t whitewash history,” he says.

By Marcel Fürstenau
Deutsche Welle, December 1, 2012

As a witness in the parliamentary inquiry looking at a 10-year string of neo-Nazi murders, August Hanning has criticized the work of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, which he himself headed for nearly a decade.

Speaking with the benefit of hindsight, August Hanning, the former president of Germany’s foreign intelligence service BND, said his agency had “underestimated” the structures and readiness for violence in Germany’s extremist right-wing scene.

On Friday (30.11.2012), Hanning spoke in front of an inquiry board of the German parliament investigating a string of neo-Nazi murders committed by the terrorist group the National Socialist Underground (NSU) between 2000 and 2007. The terror cell was only uncovered in November 2010.

It’s easier to find a needle in a haystack “when you know where it is,” Hanning said. The board of inquiry, however, had expected more from Hanning’s testimony. There are, after all, only a few who know as much as he about security services. Hanning became the BND president in 1998. Before that, he was the chancellery’s coordinator for Germany’s intelligence services. Aside from the BND, that includes the Military Counterintelligence Service (MAD) and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV).

Lacking an international perspective

Despite his years of experience and some evidence pointing to extremist right-wing activity, Hanning said he was “surprised” when the background to the string of murders was revealed.

For years, the police believed the killings were connected to organized crime, with not enough evidence pointing to a xenophobic background. But there were doubts about that theory. For example, it would have been atypical for someone from the world of organized crime to use the same gun for all the recorded killings, and the NSU’s victims were all killed with the same “Ceska” pistol.

“I believe we did not look enough abroad, in neighboring countries,” Hanning admitted. Contacts to the right-wing scene in the Czech Republic, in Sweden and Belgium were known, he said. Those contacts did seem like networks, but no one deducted from this that there might be terrorist structures within Germany.

The one lesson that Hanning took from the failed investigations on the NSU murders: Germany’s security apparatus needs to be reformed.

All agencies to Berlin

The failure in the NSU case can be an opportunity for change, Hanning said. What the now-retired expert suggests is to bring all the agencies together in Berlin. Currently, the BND is headquartered near Munich, and plans to move to Berlin are to be realized by 2014. However, both MAD and BfV have no plans to move from their current headquarters in Cologne.

Despite all the criticism, Hanning insisted that the security authorities had essentially been properly doing their job. And he maintained that the fusion of the sections on right-wing and left-wing extremists in 2006, due to budget cuts, was the right decision at the time. The focus back then had been on Islamist terror.