Government Mind Control Drugs
by Matt Giwer, © 2002 [August 22]

Disclaimer: None of this is meant to suggest such drugs are known or even if there are such drugs. None of this is meant to suggest such drugs were ever used towards these ends or ever used at all. What I do suggest is that if someone wanted such drugs there is a low cost way to get them.

There is precedent for experiments with mind altering drugs. In the 1950s, before LSD became fashionable, the CIA experimented with it on humans. That was the well known MK-Ultra program. The government has ceased denying it and has paid compensation in one known wrongful death suit.

Control is a strong term implying all the worst plots in bad science fiction. Even people whom the government controls by paying them are not always predictable in what they will do. Ask any employer about it.

The kind of control which is possible is as with blackmail and extortion. You cannot predict with certainty what the victim will do but there are a narrow range of responses, comply or go to the police. With experience one can maximize compliance over going to the police.

Usually when someone claims the government or some secret agency has or is using or is developing mind control drugs the idea is dismissed out of hand. When the occasional suggestion gains some popularity, a low level talking head ridicules the idea. In addition to the classic ridicule attacks there appears to be a serious cause for rejection of the idea.

Even if the government employees evil scientists and even if all evil scientists are also mad geniuses, where are they hiding?

Over the decades there have been about one hundred or so approved, prescription drugs on the market which alter the mind. These range from common Valium to heavy duty injection drugs like Thorazine. There are very specialized drugs to treat specific forms of mental illness.

These all have known effects which are on-balance beneficial to the patient -- although there is significant disagreement regarding some drugs. Whatever these drugs are they do not induce people to "shoot the president" or "shoot up a school." Rather they work to suppress extreme and aberrant behavior.

All of these drugs went through rigorous tests on laboratory animals before being tested on humans. The human tests are rigorously monitored and use protocols developed over decades to assure the overall effects are beneficial. The process for a single drug takes between five and ten years from discovery to approval.

Similar procedures would be required to establish a drug has the desired "evil" effects. The term is efficacy, in layman's terms effectiveness, whether positive or negative effects are desired. Nothing makes makes "evil" drugs easier to discover or develop. The world is not like religious morality.

Are the mad scientists slaving away with such tests to develop the perfect mind control drugs? The idea appears ridiculous and of course is ridiculous for any number of reasons such as the disappearance of so many test subjects over the years to determine the efficacy of the drug. Despite movies healthy test subjects without families or friends are quite rare and lacking friends that much harder to find.

On top of that for each effective drug roughly ninety nine are rejected. So what at first appeared possible with "all the resources of the government" is a much greater effort. Of course evil scientists could not worry as much about the long term health or safety of the test subjects or those the drug is to be used on so the rejection rate would not be as high as 99% but still a large number simply on the grounds that it does not work reliably or does not work at all.

But is it still possible? Is there a way to shorten the development process and decrease its size and still follow the rules to establish the drug works as desired? Unfortunately there is.

The method is to review the reasons why drugs were rejected in the human trial phase. Those have already been determined not immediately fatal or disabling by the tests on lab animals. They have been found safe for humans by the Food and Drug Administration. The human test phase has established which drugs have a negative effect on the mind rather than no effect at all. All the preliminary screening has been done and is a treasure trove waiting to be mined.

Mind control is not a "shoot the president" drug. A few years back there was a joke about President Ronald Reagan (Republican) pardoning the man (Hinkley) who tried to kill him, giving him a gun and telling him the Speaker of the House (Tip O'Neil, Democrat) loves Jody Foster, his rationale for the shooting being to impress her so she would fall in love with him.

Mental problems have distinct patterns with a generally predictable range of consequences. A paranoid is going to have a general suspicion of everyone and a fixation upon one or a small number of people being behind it all. Unlike the joke, if a drug could induce paranoia it is not clear how to direct its focus.

There are other conditions which can be predicted much better and are useful in specific circumstances. A very common consequence of severe depression is suicide. A depression inducing drug would have a generally predictable outcome of suicide. To ruin a person's reputation a drug which induces a manic state could work quite well.

And the likelihood of finding such drugs as the cause for failing human trials is very high as the drugs in human tests are dealing exactly with these mental conditions. These are not like drugs for physical ailments such as attacking an infection. They mostly work by restoring normal balance rather than eliminating the cause of the imbalance.

An experimental drug dealing with depression acts to restore the conditions which exist in a person without depression. It is dealing with the balance itself. An experimental drug to treat chronic depression that makes the depression worse is likely the most common reason for rejection after "no effect at all" reason. But making depression worse is exactly the effect useful for nefarious purposes.

The cost of discovery and animal testing eliminated as well as much of the cost of human testing. In addition, continued testing to a specific purpose is cheaper as the requirement for highly trained medical personnel and the meticulous record keeping required by the FDA is not required. The chemical structure of the drug itself as well as the means of manufacturing it are in the patent application and in drug company records. In science what does not work is as important as what does work so companies will keep scientific records of failures as well as business records for tax purposes to write off the losses on failures.

A general trend in these drugs is the newer ones tend to be effective in smaller does as they are targeting very specific parts of the brain. This makes covertly administering it easier and so small a quantity as to be tasteless while making detection in an autopsy harder. As they never reach the approved list there is no way to know what to look for in an autopsy. And as they are otherwise unknown drugs symptoms reported by eyewitnesses will not match any known drug. So even if drug residue is found it will not be identifiable as a drug, simply a odd chemical of unknown origin.

If a government wants an arsenal of such drugs for use in special circumstances they can be developed on a modest budget with minimum personnel. Once known they are available forever. As governments spy on each other and intelligence agencies share information and compete with each other, if one government does it, likely all do it or share information. As the Russians and the Americans did experiment with such drugs the practical question is how diverse are the drugs in the arsenals around the world.

More interesting is agencies which have such drugs are run by political appointees. Civilians who have knowledge of the projects come and go. A certain segment of the civilian population would have knowledge of these drugs and possibly access to them, either from old contacts or from having taken a sample with them. As we have discovered from the anthrax investigations, high security is not a guarantee.

Without doing our own research on failed drugs, even if we had access to them, we have no idea of what range of behaviors they can induce. There is a wide range of specific aberrant behaviors which are also quite rare. Most people learn to keep such behavior under control as they grow up and avoid being in a situation where they would express such behavior. Were it to suddenly appear as the result of a drug there is no lifetime of inhibitions and strategies to deal with it.

I am not suggesting a drug causes this. While many people simply dislike children to varying degrees there is a rare extreme hatred of children. There has been a rash of people shooting up schools, with no history of unusual behavior, and killing themselves afterwards. At the Columbine event a long history of planning and preparations was uncovered. No such thing has been found in the other school shooting cases.

Not all of these rare aberrations would be useful. To "shoot the president" a hatred of authority would appear useful but unless induced into one of his Secret Service bodyguards while actually protecting him the person is more likely to shoot the first police officer he sees. Inducing hatred of children on a school day does not have that problem. Inducing hatred of women could not address a specific target.

The range of possibilities is also limited. For example there is no aberration which hates journalists or any other profession so there is no way to go after specific targets.

Phobias are not useful as they are not hatreds. They are mind numbing fears which leads to incapacitation. They could possibly be useful on the battlefield if there were a way to get the enemy to ingest it.

Unlike the Reagan joke there is no (publicly) known way create a focus of a paranoia. Suddenly inducing it does not guarantee the focus of the paranoia. Of course this is predicated on the publicly condition. Even so, only rarely does paranoia lead to doing something about the focus, like try to kill it.

Mania is the opposite of depression. When in a manic phase people have no regard for the consequences of their actions. They have the feeling they can do anything. They write bad checks, proposition every woman who takes their fancy, and will binge on drugs and alcohol publicly. This behavior continues towards the police should they arrive. If one wished to discredit a public figure this would be the perfect drug particularly if they are not independently wealthy politicians.

The issue which sparked this article was the 22 August 2002 suicide of a New York Times business editor. The original eyewitness reported by Matt Drudge was that he suddenly changed while people watched and immediately threw himself off of the roof of the building. I am writing this article right after hearing of it so I have no additional information.

This entire article proves nothing. It establishes nothing. It hints at nothing. It merely recites some facts and lays out a route to a useful objective. But I do have to ask, if these drugs do not exist, why not?

Page reads: 4800