[ SECRET POST #2750 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2750 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________


















02. [WARNING for animal death]




__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 058 secrets from Secret Submission Post #393.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: No.

[(Anonymous)]

Henrietta Lacks wasn't a condemned criminal so the comparison wouldn't make sense unless OP was asking people to choose between animals and unimprisoned civilians to be tested on. iirc though, didn't they just experiment on the cells they harvested from her rather than the women herself? I think going with the tuskegee syphilis example would have been a slightly better choice since they were actually given a disease without their consent through a federally funded experiment

Re: No.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I didn't mean Henrietta Lacks, though her cells were taken without consent. I mean just what I said - read the book. It goes into great detail about the history of medical research done without consent on prisoners and poor black people, including the Tuskegee syphilis study.

Re: No.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT again

Also, if you really want to be nitpicky, the Tuskegee experiments were also not on condemned prisoners.

Re: No.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm aware, I just thought they would have been a better example that Lacks even if it's still not accurate to the choice proposed by OP. I misunderstood what the anon was getting at anyway though so the point is moot