I'm watching the Netflix docudrama "Wormwood" about the MK Ultra project and probable killing of a scientist by the CIA. At one point the 1953 CIA assassination manual was mentioned. The passage relating to the death of Dr. Frank Olson is below. I'm curious what people think may have been the bolded "excised" words: Spoiler: Assassination 2. Accidents. For secret assassination, either simple or chase, the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated. The most efficient accident, in simple assassination, is a fall of 75 feet or more onto a hard surface. Elevator shafts, stair wells, unscreened windows and bridges will serve. Bridge falls into water are not reliable. In simple cases a private meeting with the subject may be arranged at a properly-cased location. The act may be executed by sudden, vigorous [excised] of the ankles, tipping the subject over the edge. If the assassin immediately sets up an outcry, playing the "horrified witness", no alibi or surreptitious withdrawal is necessary. In chase cases it will usually be necessary to stun or drug the subject before dropping him. Care is required to insure that no wound or condition not attributable to the fall is discernible after death. Falls into the sea or swiftly flowing rivers may suffice if the subject cannot swim. It will be more reliable if the assassin can arrange to attempt rescue, as he can thus be sure of the subject's death and at the same time establish a workable al ibi. If the subject's personal habits make it feasible, alcohol may be used [2 words excised] to prepare him for a contrived accident of any kind. Falls before trains or subway cars are usually effective, but require exact timing and can seldom be free from unexpected observation. Automobile accidents are a less satisfactory means of assassination. If the subject is deliberately run down, very exact timing is necessary and investigation is likely to be thorough. If the subject's car is tampered with, reliability is very low. The subject may be stunned or drugged and then placed in the car, but this is only reliable when the car can be run off a high cliff or into deep water without observation. Arson can cause accidental death if the subject is drugged and left in a burning building. Reliability is not satisfactory unless the building is isolated and highly combustible. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt7306056/ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/01/magazine/cia-what-did-the-cia-do-to-his-father.html https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/ciaguat2.html
An expected derail by a KGB supporter. Can you answer the question or must you continue rolling into the weeds?
I have always been questionable about the claims that Frank Olson was killed by the CIA, it simply makes no sense. Anybody who knows about this has to realize the situation, both legal and medical at this time. This was not 1983, or 2003, this was in 1953. In 1953, LSD was perfectly legal. And it had been a prescription drug since 1947. By 1953 it (like Exstacy years later) was commonly used by psychiatrists and therapists for "psychedelic therapy". It was believed that ingesting the drug would help unblock repressed memories and feelings, and bipolar disorder. It was even used to help try and cure alcohol addiction. Others, like artists were also using it, believing it helped unlock hidden creativity inside of themselves. Cary Grant, Aldous Huxley, and others were known to have been taking LSD starting in 1950 for this reason. Aldus Huxley would later write "The Doors of Perception" about his LSD experiments in 1954. So why on earth would the CIA kill somebody, after he was given a drug that was not only perfectly legal at the time, but a great many doctors were prescribing for medicinal use. And was already being used legally for recreational use as well? LSD would not become outlawed for another 13 years, in 1966. It just does not make sense. Might as well claim that the Government had somebody killed in 1915, then claiming in 1922 after the 18th Amendment was in force that it was because the Government gave them alcohol.
In that time period, a lot of doctors thought that was the way of the future to cure mental illness. By the early 1950's, the previous method of dealing with mental illness (lobotomy) had been discredited and was rapidly falling into disfavor. The technique was crude, and unpredictable in addition to all to often being fatal. One of the US Presidents even had a sister who was largely turned into a vegetative state because of a lobotomy gone wrong. So they started looking for the solution in drugs. LSD, MDMA (Ecstasy), Mescaline, Psilocybin, and a great many other psychedelic drugs (both natural and synthetic) were soon being used in "Psychedelic Therapy". And by the late 1950's it was being used for almost anything. PTSD, OCD, alcoholism, mania, bi-polar disorder, migraines, even depression and schizophrenia. It was even often used as a way to help terminal patients in their final hours. Aldous Huxley in the hours before his death from cancer was given 100 micrograms of LSD in 1963. The problem was that the effects were almost entirely unpredictable. One patient may get some relief from their illness, but the next would go into a mental breakdown. There was no way at all to control the effects of the drugs from person to person, or even from day to day. Even by the time it was outlawed it was rapidly falling out of favor. It was realized that these drugs were not actually curing anything, and in many cases even made the patients worse. One of the last of these attempts was in the late 1970's and early 1980's, when MDMA (then called "Adam") was first used as a way to lower inhibitions as part of a "Role Therapy" sessions, then became common as a party drug by yuppies. It was cheap, easily available, and at that time legal. And ironically the side effects (anxiety, paranoia, depression) were ironically some of the very things it was often prescribed at the "therapy" sessions to cure. But by the mid-1980's MDMA was outlawed in the US, and in the rest of the world by the UN. I often wonder why some still try to drag out these various failed forms of therapy. Might as well bring back leeches, bleeding, and lobotomies as far as I am concerned. It is about as useful in my opinion.
Notice I never said it did not work. But it was highly unpredictable. I am sure for every 4 that was helped like your grandfather, there was probably 1 that was made worse. That is why they stopped it's use. We all know about "bad trips". But what is less often known is Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (HPPV). In many LSD users, the senses become confused. People on the drug may say they can "taste colors" or "see sounds". These effects wear off as the drug is metabolized from the system. And flashbacks are still not fully understood. Where months or even years later an LSD user may return to their trip without warning for no apparent reason. And this is not only a side effect on from LSD, all psychedelic drugs have this side effect. But in HPPV, the visual effects become chronic. The visual effects of the drug become permanent impairments for the rest of the individuals lives. Distortions, halos, loss of depth perception, and "background snow" are all effects of HPPV. And doctors still have no idea what exactly causes it. It may happen on the first use of a drug, or on the 20th.
It wasn't the LSD, but the program itself of using unwilling human beings as guinea pigs, especially in Germany where Project Artichoke and, ultimately MK Ultra allegedly used imprisoned Nazis and captured Soviet spies for testing. The Nuremberg Trials were only a few years before and Nazi scientists had been convicted of exactly the same thing; using involuntary human guinea pigs. The story goes that Olson was upset about this hypocrisy and was going to talk. The Soviets had their Siberian Gulags to send people, but the US had nothing, so the decision (allegedly) was to silence him permanently.
There's different types and people react differently to it. There's also the difference between a person who knows they are taking a tab of acid and someone who has ten tabs slipped in their drink without their knowledge. There were experiments to see what the maximum dose was before a person's cheese slid off their cracker.
And at hat time LSD was also considered "safe". Even into the 1970's to many people spiking somebody with LSD was often considered just a "good joke". You need to turn the clock back on this and look at it through the eyes of 1953.
Dude, putting a bit of vodka in a date's drink is one thing, but spiking it with several shots is another. We're not talking about "medical doses" here, but massive doses of LSD seeking specific results; at what point does it break people and at what point does it drive them insane or kill them. We're also talking about unwilling subject, not volunteers. Do you understand the difference between a date willingly taking a Roofie and a date who is given it without their knowledge? Do you understand the ethics involved here? Yes, I understand the difference between the CIA of 1953 and the CIA of 2018. Vietnam and Watergate were watershed moments. Unlike the Conspiracy Theorists, I understand times and institutions change. I support our nation. I support our intelligence services. I support the FBI and the CIA. I do not condone many of the actions that took place during the Cold War, especially before Watergate, by either the US government nor the F__king Soviets. I strongly believe the United States more ethical, moral and a better leader of the free world today, in 2018, than Russia.
Tell you what. First of all, give me any reputable evidence that he gave him a "massive dose". Because I looked and never found any. For two, LSD was legal. We are not talking about the CIA, but the drug. At that period of time it was largely thought to be "harmless". As far as how much to "break people", or to cause them "to go insane", the amount there really does not matter at all. That is exactly why it was discontinued as a medical drug. It was highly unpredictable. One person could take a 25 microgram dose and have a mellow experience. Another person could take 25 milligrams of the same batch and have a horror filled nightmare of a trip. And the first could then take another 25 microgram tab (from the same batch once again) and go almost catatonic. That is why the decision was made to discontinue it's use as a clinical tool. It was simply to unpredictable. And the amount of dose does not really matter, it is almost impossible to overdose on LSD. And taking more does not affect the trip at all, it simply prolongs it a bit longer. But most believe he had what is known as a "bad trip", and probably started to become paranoid. That is not an uncommon side effect from LSD. And his death a week later was more than likely due to a psychotic flashback. But how about dropping your own take on this, and show us where there is evidence he had a "massive dose", and why would the CIA kill him for taking a perfectly legal substance. It makes no sense.
You're missing the point; Olson wasn't the one given the massive dose. He was the one who had misgivings about the use of massive doses of LSD on involuntary test subjects under Project Artichoke. Since you ran off on a tangent on this specific point, can I safely assume you have no clue regarding the question about the redacted words in the OP?
CIA has worked and aided some of the biggest drug lords and terrorist you can imagine Very shameful their history
