April 9, 2025 • 52 mins
The brutal murder of Dr. Mary Sherman in 1964 New Orleans holds far more disturbing implications than initially meets the eye. Her partially burned body, discovered with stab wounds and inexplicable burns that experts suggest could only come from high-voltage radiation, opens a doorway into a shadowy world where medicine, government secrecy, and Cold War politics collide.
Drawing from extensive research in Edward Haslam's "Dr. Mary's Monkey," we explore the compelling theory that Sherman wasn't simply a murder victim but potentially a participant—willing or unwitting—in covert cancer research aimed at developing a biological weapon. The connections between key figures surrounding her death create an unsettling picture: David Ferrie, an eccentric pilot with intelligence connections who kept an apartment full of cancer-infected mice; Lee Harvey Oswald, whose phone number appeared in Sherman's address book; and a network of scientists working on the fringes of ethical medicine.
Most chilling is the timeline proposed by researchers: just months before Sherman's death, a team allegedly tested cancer-causing viruses on unwitting prisoners, confirmed their effectiveness, and then systematically removed evidence from Sherman's apartment. Whether she died from an experiment gone wrong or because she knew too much remains uncertain, but the pattern of secrecy is unmistakable.
The ramifications extend beyond one unsolved murder. We discuss how government-sponsored unethical experiments like the Tuskegee syphilis study did occur during this era, making these theories impossible to dismiss outright. Perhaps most concerning is the potential connection to the polio vaccine program, where monkey viruses like SV40 contaminated early vaccines, raising questions about long-term public health consequences that continue to echo today.
This case forces us to confront uncomfortable questions: What price are we willing to pay for medical progress? When does national security override ethical considerations? And most importantly, who ensures transparency when powerful interests prefer secrets remain buried? Sherman's story serves as a stark reminder that vigilance and accountability must accompany scientific advancement, especially when human lives hang in the balance.
Primary Source:
"Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor, a Secret Laboratory in New Orleans and Cancer-Causing Monkey Viruses are Linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the JFK Assassination and Emerging Global Epidemics," by Edward T. Haslam, Updated Edition, copyright 2014.
Don't miss a (heart) beat! Check out our Instagram @doctoringthetruthpodcast and email us your Medical Mishaps at doctoringthetruth@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at Doctoring the Truth, and TikTok @doctoring the truth. Don't forget to download, rate, and review so we can keep bringing you more exciting content each week!
Stay safe, and stay suspicious...trust, after all, is a delicate thing!
Don't forget to check out these fantastic discounts from our sponsors:
Visit www.shimmerwood.com for an exclusive 30% off with our discount code STAYSUSPICIOUS
20% Off Strong Coffee Company https://strongcoffeecompany.com/discount/STAYSUSPICIOUS
www.handful.com for 30% off with our code STAYSUSPICIOUS
www.standshoes.com for 15% off any product with our code STAYSUSPICIOUS
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hello, hello, hello, hello.
How are you?
I am fabulous, how are you?
You know what?
Speaker 2 (00:12):
This morning was freezing out.
It was.
It was colder than a witch'shoo-ha.
But tonight the sun is out.
It's beautiful.
But I will tell you I do havemy blinds in my window.
That's in front of my recordingdesk at half mast, because last
week I was caught actuallysaying squirrel and then
(00:36):
interrupting the whole thing andlosing track of what we were
talking about so, yeah, yeah,that did happen, didn't it?
We should just let everyoneknow.
I mean, adhd is a thing,something shiny.
But I'm also trying to curtailit a little bit just for the
sake of the pod.
But yeah, so do you have anyplans for the spring?
(01:00):
Do you guys grow stuff?
Do you like to putz aroundoutside or hike?
Speaker 1 (01:07):
well, dog we did have a garden when we lived in
mankato before, and our newhouse came with a wildflower
garden and a large raised bedgarden.
The people that lived herebefore us didn't take very good
care of the garden in the falltime, so there's like old
(01:32):
vegetable carcasses out there.
But whatever, let's getfertilizer maybe.
Yeah, so, um, definitely I'm soexcited to get my flower
planters going.
Oh yeah, I have been patientlywaiting for the garden centers
to open, and on Monday was thatjust yesterday I drove to a
(02:02):
place that I see a kiddo at andI happened to go past Home Depot
to go there and they had theflowers out.
So probably this weekend I'mgoing to go buy a ton of flowers
and do my pots.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Yes, there's nothing like a planter.
I'm a big fan of a planter, andwhen those garden centers open,
it's time to break out open-toeseason for real.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Yes, we're also super excited.
The the yard came with thosegardens, which is interesting,
but they never did anylandscaping, so we have just
like a fresh slate.
So we get to like buy trees andshrubs and ah, I'm so excited
yeah, that's so cool.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
And then you know, a few years from now you'd be like
, oh, remember when we print, weplanted that little thing and
we brought it home in our carand now it's like 15 feet tall.
Yes, I'm so excited.
That is cool.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
How about you?
Do you have anything you wantto share?
Speaker 2 (02:55):
I mean, every year I have to do a bumper crop of
basil because I have to makepesto.
I love it so much, pesto, Ilove it so much.
Um, but this year I really, youknow, what I love is like when
summer's over and you've, like,your tomatoes are beyond, and
and all this, the herbs andstuff, I like to be able to go
(03:16):
out and discover a zucchini thesize of a toddler, you know, and
so because they come out alittle bit later and I forget
about them.
So I think this year we'regoing to go back to squash,
we're going to go back to squashland and and maybe some
pumpkins too, because, yeah, um,we live on kind of a a little
(03:38):
area that, you know, right downfrom our house dips into a
ravine, down to a river, and sowe like to go, we do our little
pumpkin thing and then, whenthey're beyond, we do pumpkin
bowling oh my gosh fun get itdown, down the road into.
I mean, it's the little thingsin life, right?
Speaker 1 (03:57):
so we need more pumpkins for our pumpkin bowling
I love that, yeah, and also canconfirm that your pesto is
chef's kiss.
I would like to dip a littlebaby.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
thank you, if this podcast doesn't work out, I'm
just gonna start pesto business.
You should, or maybe we could,market my pesto as, like Dr Nina
Truth pesto, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
I don't know what I would have to bring to the table
other than confirming that it'sdelicious.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Yeah, I guess murder isn't really appetizing to your
crime and health care, butanyway, not everything can match
or make sense.
That's what makes lifebeautiful.
Beautiful.
Oh, I do have a correctionsection uh.
Last week, like I said, I'mprobably on FBI list um to watch
(04:55):
Uh, but I had searched what ittakes to burn a body and um, I
said it took 600 to 2,000degrees.
This is really exciting, but no, it's 1,600 is what I meant to
say.
1,600 to 2,000 degreesFahrenheit for several hours,
and that's a recipe to burn abody.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
So just want to make sure everybody knows that.
So hopefully none of youactually need to know that, but
just some food for thought.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
So, yeah, you can't just do it on your you know,
broiler setting in your oven.
I mean, this has got to be thereal deal.
So yeah, we went from likeflowers and gardening to science
.
Um, anyway, so this week ispart two Monkeys, mice and Mary,
(05:47):
the Mysterious Murder of DrSherman.
Um, are you ready for this?
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Yeah, I can't wait to see what happens.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Did you re-buckle your seatbelt?
Oh, hang on, I'm in.
So I love that last.
Thank you for that, all rightin, so I'd love that last.
I thank you for that, all right.
Um, so information that wasobtained uh, it was obtained
from the same book that wetalked about last week, dr
mary's monkey, by edward haslamthe updated edition, because he
(06:16):
updated it like 10 years afterhe, I think in 2014, after he
learned some new stuff.
So, um, there's that, and thenany remaining sources will be
listed in our show notes.
And then I should give atrigger warning.
This episode containsinformation about the medical
experimentation of animals,which many consider animal abuse
(06:37):
.
So just be aware, I don't gointo terribly a lot of detail,
but there's some disturbingdetails, I will say so be warned
.
So last week we talked about thefact that key figures in New
Orleans' underground network ofspies, anti-castro operatives
and medical researchers may haveplayed a role in shaping the
(07:00):
events leading up to JFK's death.
The connections are eerie andfascinating.
So let's talk about some of theplayers here.
I'm not going to talk a lotabout JFK's death, but just the
connections I find aresurprising and fascinating.
So Lee Harvey Oswald was one.
He spent the summer of 1963 inNew Orleans, mingling with
(07:22):
anti-Castro groups while posingas a pro-Castro activist Ooh,
double agent.
His movements during this timeremain suspicious and some
believe intelligence agencieswere manipulating him.
If these theories hold anytruth, it suggests that Lee
Harvey Oswald was far more thana lone gunman.
(07:43):
Instead, he may have been apatsy caught up in a web of
covert operations, biologicalwarfare experiments and
CIA-backed plots.
Then there's David Ferry wetalked about member wig guy,
orange wig guy.
He's a former pilot.
He had ties to both Oswald andorganized crime and he was
(08:05):
allegedly working on secretunderground medical experiments.
So the book describes that hehad two apartments across the
street from one another.
One apartment was full of athousand or more white mice with
varying degrees of cancer,along with lab and medical
equipment, including a linearaccelerator, that particle
(08:25):
accelerator we talked about forradiating um.
The other apartment across thestreet was where he slept at
night.
I mean, I don't blame him.
Would you want to sleep withthousands of?
Speaker 1 (08:34):
mice.
No, I'm still dying over herethinking about it?
Speaker 2 (08:39):
um, when his apartment was searched after his
sudden death in 1967,investigators reportedly found
medical books, includingtreatises.
How do you say treatises?
Treatises on cancer research?
So yeah, written stuff aboutcancer research.
And then there's I don't knowif you remember that Mary
(09:00):
Sherman worked for Dr AltonOxner.
He is a respected but fiercelyanti-communist physician who
headed his own clinic called theOxner Clinic, where he
maintained deep connections withthe government and intelligence
community.
But how does Mary Sherman fitinto this picture?
Haslam theorizes that Shermanwas deeply involved in the
(09:21):
secret cancer research projectand may have died because of an
experiment gone wrong or becauseshe knew too much.
Her gruesome death, with burnsthat some believe resulted from
exposure to high voltageradiation, may have been a
cover-up to conceal what reallyhappened in her lab.
And, by the way, lee Oswald'sphone number was found in Mary
(09:41):
Sherman's address book, so theydefinitely knew each other.
And then there's Judith VaryBaker.
She's a woman who later claimedto be Oswald's lover and
insisted that she and Oswaldwere part of a secret project in
New Orleans involving cancerresearch.
She alleges that the goal wasto create a biological weapon
(10:01):
fast-acting cancer cells toassassinate foreign leaders like
Castro In 1963, the youngcancer researchers' specialized
skills were needed to weaponizecancer for the bioweapon, and
she was the one who transportedthe product of their cancer
research to Mary Sherman'sapartment for her review.
According to a book that shewrote titled Me and Lee how I
(10:25):
Came to Know, love and Lose, leeHarvey Oswald.
On August 28th 1963, theReverend Dr Martin Luther King
Jr delivered his I have a Dreamspeech in Washington DC during
the Civil Rights March.
The CORE Congress of RacialEquality had planned voter
(10:45):
registration drives for Blacksacross the country for the
following day, august 29, 1963.
So the highly segregatedClinton Louisiana was one of the
sites targeted by the COREoffice in Baton Rouge.
After a summer of killing miceand monkeys with their cancerous
cocktails, it was time to testthe concoction on a human.
(11:06):
On Thursday, august 29th, clayShaw drove David Ferry, lee
Oswald and the bioweapon toJackson, louisiana.
There they would need to getpast the guards and fences
surrounding the East LouisianaState Mental Hospital a facility
for the criminally insane.
Louisiana State Mental Hospitala facility for the criminally
(11:27):
insane to inject the bioweaponinto specially selected quote
volunteer end quote prisoners.
So methinks it's more likevolunforced yeah, voluntold to
be my prisoner.
Right Voluntold to be myexperiment victim.
The problem was this was goingto be difficult, since the
prisoner, or prisoners, werestill in nearby Angola
(11:48):
Penitentiary and needed to betransferred to the hospital in
Jackson.
Jackson, louisiana, is a tinytown where a black Cadillac
might just attract unwantedattention to the men
transporting the bioweapon.
Clinton Louisiana, however, wasjust down the road from Jackson
and was a slightly larger townwith a courthouse where cars
(12:08):
such as their fancy blackCadillac were commonly parked by
lawyers, judges and politicians.
So it was here that Clay Shawplanned to wait for a phone call
that said that the prisoner hadleft Angola and was en route to
the hospital in Jackson, andwas en route to the hospital in
Jackson.
Once the prisoner had left,shaw would proceed to Jackson to
(12:30):
rendezvous with the van fromAngola so that he could follow
it onto the mental hospitalgrounds, as if his black caddy
was part of the official convoyfrom Angola.
What Shaw and his buddiesexpected to find in Clinton that
day was an empty square infront of a small town courthouse
on a hot, humid Augustafternoon.
What they found instead,however, was a crowded square
(12:52):
with a bunch of angry whiteswatching unwanted Black voter
registration drive, with thetown's marshal surveying the
scene.
They had driven into the centerof a hotbed of civil rights
activity with everyone watching.
Finally, the payphone rang.
Shaw got his call and the caddyheaded to the hospital in
Jackson where someone from thegroup injected the prisoner
(13:15):
slash prisoners it was neverclear it was more than one
person with the cancer weapon.
Once that was done, shaw's teamstarted the long drive back to
New Orleans To determine if thebioweapon had been effective.
A blood test would need to beconducted 48 hours later, and
not just any blood test, it wasa blood titration test that only
(13:35):
a few people in the countryeven knew how to perform.
And guess what?
One of these people was JudahFerry Baker, lee Oswald's
girlfriend.
So two days later, at 11 am onAugust 31st 1963, lee Harvey
Oswald began driving JudithFerry Baker from New Orleans to
Jackson, Louisiana, so Judithcould perform the blood tests on
(13:58):
the prisoners slash prisonersto confirm that the cancer
cocktail had kicked in and ithad.
At the end of the day, leedropped Judith off at her house
at 1032 Marengo Street at 10 pm,and this was the end of
Judith's involvement with theproject, which had proven itself
by this time.
And remember how I mentionedlast week that Mary's apartment
(14:24):
was burgled like a month or sobefore her murder.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
So the same night that Lee dropped Judith off at
her house, around 11 pm, someonepried open the door to Mary
Sherman's apartment.
But Mary was not there.
Earlier that day she'd flown toLondon where she stayed for a
month.
The burglar removed thousandsof dollars of property from her
apartment.
(14:48):
Okay, so the development phaseof the bioweapon was over.
Mary left the country beforeJudith performed the blood
testing for cancer and by thetime the day was over, the
evidence that might have linkedMary to the project had been
stolen from her apartment.
All of her medical equipmenthad been removed from her
apartment.
A heavyset Cuban-looking manhad been seen near the area and
(15:09):
the net effect was that evidenceconnecting Mary Sherman to the
bioweapon plot had beensanitized.
So was Mary Sherman an innocentscientist caught up in a deadly
conspiracy?
Was Lee Harvey Oswald a pawn ina much larger game?
And did the medical experimentsin New Orleans play a role in
one of the greatest politicalassassinations of all time?
(15:31):
One thing is for certain thedeeper you dig, the stranger the
story becomes.
One of the most significantimpacts of Dr Mary's Monkey the
book is how it reinforcesskepticism towards official
government narratives.
Towards official governmentnarratives, the idea that
(15:51):
intelligence agencies may havebeen involved in secret medical
experiments or that they couldcover up.
Something as shocking asSherman's alleged high-voltage
radiation injuries feeds intolong-standing fears about what
the government isn't telling us.
In an era, I know right.
In an era when classifieddocuments continue to be
released about Cold Waroperations, the CIA's
(16:13):
involvement in biologicalresearch and even new details on
JFK's assassination, haslam'sbook reminds readers that those
in power often write history.
The more secrets that areuncovered, the more people
question the official record,question the official record.
The book also raises unsettlingquestions about medical
(16:33):
experimentation and the ethicsof scientific research.
The 20th century is litteredwith examples of unethical
medical studies, from theTuskegee syphilis experiment to
MKUltra, the CIA's mind controlprogram.
If Haslam's claims are evenpartially true, it suggests that
researchers may have conductedrisky, unregulated experiments
(16:55):
in the name of national security.
And now it's time for a gettingbetter at it.
Welcome to the chart notessegment, where we learn
something about what's happeningor what's happened in medicine
and healthcare.
So I wanted to know.
(17:17):
I knew about MKUltra and wecould do a whole episode on that
, or theories really, but Ididn't know about the Tuskegee
syphilis experiment.
So I looked into that and theTuskegee syphilis experiment was
an unethical clinical studyconducted in the United States
between 1932 and 1972 by the USPublic Health Service and the
(17:39):
Centers for Disease Control andPrevention in Tuskegee, alabama.
The study aimed to observe thenatural progression of untreated
syphilis in an African Americanmen without their informed
consent.
Can you believe this?
This is documented this isn'tconspiracy, this is a fact, this
(18:01):
is unfortunate fact.
Yeah, yeah.
So the study involves 600African, 600 African American
men.
That's so many.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
For one experiment that they didn't tell any of
them what's going on.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
That's a lot.
Yeah, it makes me so sadbecause you know they were
considered less than and so theyjust didn't have to.
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Well, my mind didn't even go there, I just was like
holy cats, 600 people.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
But yeah, you're right 600 people let alone, but
600, they probably paid them orsomething, and given the
demographics and those who werefortunate versus those who were
not, I mean anyway, so 399 hadsyphilis and 201 did not.
(18:51):
That was the control group, sothey were given syphilis.
By the way, they didn't justshow up to the study.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
That's what I was in my head.
I'm like how do they know theyhad syphilis?
Speaker 2 (19:02):
No, no, no.
They gave them syphilis Ofcourse they did 399 of these 600
men syphilis and 201 was thecontrol group out of this group
of 600.
The participants were neverinformed that they had syphilis,
but they were told they werebeating, being treated for bad
blood, which is a very vagueterm, and even after penicillin
(19:24):
was discovered as an effectivetreatment in 1943.
So if you let me just back upthis, the study started in 1932,
and went on until 1972.
Oh my gosh, 40 years, I know.
So in 1943, they had a solutionand effective treatment, but
the researchers didn't provideit to the participants or even
(19:47):
inform them about it.
The study continued for 40years, during which many of
these participants died,infected their spouses and
passed congenital syphilis totheir children.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
That's so sad.
I'm also thinking like if thistreatment came out in 1943, you
could at least not be an assholeto the extreme and make a third
group and do research at leaston how the treatment works right
, that's not what their interestwas, I suppose I mean this is
(20:20):
murder, right I mean?
Speaker 2 (20:22):
so I can't believe this happened.
So in 1972 the experiment wasexposed by the media, leading to
public outrage, and rightly so.
Um and its immediatetermination.
In 1973, the us government wassued and an out-of-court
settlement.
Don't you just love theout-of-court settlements where
they don't have to admit guiltand we don't know what the
(20:43):
financial compensation is butthere was financial compensation
to the victims and theirfamilies.
I mean, I'm sure that reallyhelped, you know, with those who
lost loved ones over this notto mention those who suffered
and the kids who grew up withcongenital sickness.
So I mean it's unbelievable,it's like made up but yet it
(21:08):
happened and it's out.
There know court records andwhatnot.
But in 1997 president billclinton issued an official, an
official public apology to thesurvivors on behalf of the us
government again.
I'm sure they felt really greatafter that I mean, it's
something I mean, but yeah, um,this experiment became a symbol
(21:29):
of medical racism and ethicalmisconduct in science, leading
to significant reforms inmedical research, including the
Belmont Report and theestablishment of institutional
review boards IRBs.
So tiny silver lining thatthere was some positive changes
(21:49):
after this.
But why did it have to takethis?
I mean, we're not talking abouta couple.
A couple people would have beenbad enough.
Yeah hundreds.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Yeah, oh my gosh um.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
So the tuskegee syphilis experiment had a
lasting impact on theafrican-american community's
trust in the uS healthcaresystem, which influences
attitudes towards medicalresearch, clinical trials and
vaccinations, and we see that tothis day.
Yeah, I could see that.
Could we do a whole series?
(22:23):
We could do a whole series I'masking myself a rhetorical
question in my notes here.
But we could do a whole serieson the MKUltra mind control
experiments, but there areplenty of documentaries and
podcasts out there if you'reinterested in in my notes here.
But we could do a whole serieson the MK Ultra Mind Control
Experiments.
But there are plenty ofdocumentaries and podcasts out
there if you're interested inlearning more about the whole
horrific, exploitative tortureof unsuspecting and innocent
people in the name of advancingintelligence.
So deep breath, ugh, yeah, Ihate it, yeah.
(22:46):
Then there's the potentialcontamination of the polio
vaccine with SV40, a monkeyvirus that some suspect could be
linked to cancer, which isespecially alarming and it
forces us to ask how much do weknow about the medicine we take?
Has scientific advancementscome at a hidden cost?
Could other unethicalexperiments still be happening
(23:07):
today under the guise ofnational security?
Speaker 1 (23:12):
I would say yes.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Back to the case.
While the scientific communitycontinues to debate the SB40
controversy, dr Mary's monkeyleft a lasting impact by keeping
these concerns alive in publicdiscourse.
Monkeys have played a criticalrole in medical research for
decades, contributing to some ofthe most important
breakthroughs in vaccines,neuroscience and disease
(23:36):
treatment.
But as science has advanced, sohave the ethical debates
surrounding the use of primatesin labs.
During the mid-20th century,monkeys played a crucial role in
the development of the poliovaccine.
Researchers, including Dr JonasSalk and Dr Albert Sabine, used
rhesus monkey kidney cells togrow the polio virus and develop
(23:58):
an effective vaccine.
This was a major victory forpublic health, virtually
eradicating polio in much of theworld.
At the same time, primates werealso being used in cancer
research, radiation studies andeven covert government projects.
According to Dr Mary's, monkeysecret experiments in New
Orleans involved infectingmonkeys with cancer-causing
(24:19):
viruses, allegedly as part of aneffort to understand how cancer
spreads and to possiblyweaponize it.
As we've talked about, thesimian virus SV40, which
contaminated some batches of thepolio vaccine in the 1950s,
later became a controversialtopic, with some scientists
questioning whether itcontributed to human cancer
(24:40):
cases.
Haslam makes a compellingconnection between this virus,
the polio vaccine and the cancerresearch that Dr Sherman was
allegedly conducting.
He suggests that the SV40 virus, which was carried by monkeys
used to grow the vaccine, mayhave played a role in triggering
cancer in humans, leading to acancer epidemic decades later.
(25:00):
While this remains acontroversial theory, haslam
ties the SV40 contaminationdirectly to the monkey research
conducted by Sherman and hercolleagues.
He argues that the CIA andother government agencies were
not only using monkeys forcancer research, but they were
also experimenting with the veryviruses that might end up
contaminating vaccines.
The larger implication here isthat the use of monkeys in
(25:23):
medical research and theunregulated viral
experimentation could havefar-reaching consequences,
leading to unforeseen healthcrises.
This event also underscores thedangers of government-sponsored
medical experimentation, wherepublic health is sometimes
compromised for political ormilitary objectives.
It raises questions about howmuch we truly understand about
(25:46):
the long-term effects of medicalresearch, especially when it
involves potential contaminationof everyday medical treatment
like vaccines.
As medical research advanced, sodid ethical concerns about the
use of primates in labs.
By the 1960s, animal rightsadvocates were beginning to
challenge the widespread use ofmonkeys in experiments, raising
(26:06):
concerns about suffering andhumane treatment.
Many experiments involved highradiation exposure, surgical
procedures, disease injections,often without pain relief.
The author describes helpinghis father at work when he was
in his teens and coming acrossthe Simian Studies Lab at the
hospital campus in Tulane.
It held monkeys with metalplates on their heads.
(26:27):
Their skulls had been toppedoff, electrodes inserted into
their brains, and then theelectrodes were soldered to a
metal plate that was fused tothe top of their heads.
This way the researchers couldperform experiments and measure
the monkeys' brains' responsesto various stimuli, drugs et
cetera.
I mean, wow, so the necessity ofprimate research?
(26:51):
I mean, as technology improves,some scientists question
whether or not primates arestill essential for medical
progress, especially with thedevelopment of cell cultures and
computer modeling.
Do we really need to be, youknow, using animals and watching
them suffer?
Even a mouse?
You, you know?
Yeah, I don't like that.
I know I hate it too.
(27:13):
The long-term impact were someexperiments like those described
in Dr Mary's Monkey, conductedrecklessly in the name of Cold
War science.
By the 1970s and beyond,regulations such as the Animal
Welfare Act imposed stricterguidelines on the use of
primates in medical research.
Today the debate continues,with researchers balancing the
(27:35):
need for scientific progresswith growing calls for
alternative testing methods.
I mean, I get the conundrum, Iget the dichotomy here.
Like, we want to save humansand you know we can't use humans
, as literally the phrase saysguinea pigs right, so that means
(27:59):
we can use guinea pigs?
I mean, I get it.
Are you going to sacrifice aguinea pig for a cure for cancer
?
Right, yeah, but I don't.
You know what.
Where's the line?
So I'm not saying I have theanswer to this and I'm not
saying I judge this and I'mdefinitely not saying don't
trust your vaccines.
I'm just saying it's had a, a,um, a sketchy history in its
(28:23):
origins.
You know Um and who's to say.
I mean, I think I've had likesix COVID vaccines and I have
asthma and I've gotten COVID andnot died.
So is it because I had thevaccines?
Like, I'm not a conspiracytheorist, but I can see where,
at some point, in order for usto advance to save human life,
like, do we do it at the cost ofanimals or do we have enough
(28:46):
technology now where we don'teven have to sacrifice anything,
we can protect all life and anduse predictive ai and computer
modeling?
Speaker 1 (28:56):
I don't know, it's above my pay grade, but I'm just
thinking out loud, I like whereyour head's at though yeah, I
want to save the mice, themonkeys and the humans you know,
I know, I know I'm just yeah, Ijust can't stop thinking this
is not.
I'm not going to go too farinto this rabbit hole, but I
(29:17):
drive a lot for work now andevery time I pass a truck full
of chickens or piggies and Iknow they're not going for
medical experience or going forbutcher, but I'm just like, oh
my gosh.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
God yeah.
But I mean I love, I love me agood chicken wing, I love me
bacon and it's like, but I wantto cry when I see those little
piggies on their way to market.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Every time I pass them I have to message my friend
Michaela, and I'm like MichaelaI just passed a truck full of
cute little piggy butts, butlike I'm still going to eat
bacon, like me, stopping eatingthem is not going to save them
all I know, but if everyone saidthey were going to stop eating?
I know that's where the troubleis the demand.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
I know right, but bacon is so good and I know so.
Maybe the difference is youknow, I don't know.
You're right, we're going downa rabbit hole.
Let's just decide we'rehypocrites, but hopefully it's a
quick death.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
Yes, and they don't have metal plates in their head
with electrodes.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
And they're just like causing pain and injury and
harm and then watching whathappens, like I don't know.
There's something sadisticalmost about that in the name of
science, um, and as someone wholoves science, I just I don't
know.
I see the name, but I alsothink gosh, we should probably.
Yeah, exactly, thank you for.
Thank you for that.
That's exactly what I meant tosay anyway.
(30:49):
So, um, in this book I wasreading I mean, I did not
bargain for this I thought I wasgoing to get a juicy moida,
maybe a little bit of voodoo.
I was in a, I was in a littlelittle dusty curio shop and off
of, uh, bourbon street and uh,here we go with all this
conspiracy stuff that I honestlytry to avoid.
(31:09):
But, my my God, some of this isjust eye-opening, which I
probably needed.
So, all right, there's that.
So, even though the book delvesinto a lot of conspiracy
theories, there was a lot of.
You know, what interested mewere the undercurrents of the
(31:29):
cold war, science, thegovernment, secrecy, the
intersections of the medicalethics versus espionage, um, so
I wanted to look at those eventsin greater detail and explore
their implications.
So, obviously the most pivotalevent, and the reason I bought
the book, is the brutal murderof dr Mary Sherman in 1964.
(31:50):
And, as we know, she was arespected orthopedic surgeon and
cancer researcher and was foundin her New Orleans apartment
stabbed multiple times.
But what makes her murder sosuspicious and arguably tied to
some of these largerconspiracies were the unusual
burns on her body.
So some experts suggested thatthe burns, as we talked about,
(32:12):
could have only been caused byexposure to high-voltage
radiation, and that theorypoints directly to her
involvement in dangerous medicalexperiments.
So the official narrativedescribes her death as a random
act of violence, but Haslamsuggests that her research into
the cancer-causing viruses mayhave made her a target and, more
chillingly, he connects herdeath to cover-up efforts,
(32:33):
possibly orchestrated bypowerful figures involved in a
secret cancer project aimed ateliminating Castro.
So Sherman's gruesome injuries,he argues, weren't just the
result of a murder.
They were a way to erase atrail that led straight to
covert government operations.
So the larger implications hereare the idea that governments
can be involved in weaponizingdiseases for political purposes,
(32:56):
and that raises questions aboutthe lengths to which certain
agencies might go in the name ofnational security.
And it also highlights thepotential dangers of unethical
medical experimentation, wherethe line between research and
warfare is dangerously blurred.
So while much of theexperimentation discussed in the
book happened in the mid-20thcentury, this theme is still
(33:18):
painfully relevant today.
Medical research is evolvingrapidly and the temptation to
bend ethical guidelines in thename of finding new cures or
creating breakthrough treatmentsis ever present.
The question remains what priceare we willing to pay?
The ethical dilemmas of thisera continue to be felt.
While vaccines and cancertreatments have saved millions
of lives, the shadow of earlyexperimentation, often conducted
(33:41):
without full transparency,raises questions about the cost
of medical progress.
We don't need to look far tosee the ethical questions that
still surround genetic research,human trials and artificial
intelligence in healthcare.
The legacy of unethicalexperiments like those described
in this book remind us thatvigilance is key.
We must continue to askourselves whether our hunger for
(34:03):
progress sometimes blinds us tothe potential harm or
exploitation that could occurbehind the scenes.
The other lingering theme in thebook is government secrecy, the
idea that those in powersometimes choose to hide the
truth to protect nationalinterests or, worse, to cover up
the ugly consequences of theirown actions, whether it's the
JFK assassination, covertbiological warfare or the
(34:25):
contamination of vaccines.
Haslam paints a picture of aworld where secrecy is not only
the norm but an active tool usedto manipulate the public and
hide the darker sides ofgovernment operations.
It's a theme that feelsparticularly timely today, in an
age of mass surveillance,disinformation and intelligence
leaks, the idea that governmentsare capable of hiding dangerous
(34:47):
truths from the public is morerelevant than ever.
The classified nature ofresearch and military projects,
the manipulation of narrativesand the erasure of inconvenient
facts still occurs today, andsometimes with real consequences
.
So one thing we learned fromthis book is that trust in our
(35:08):
leaders and institutions must beearned and not given freely.
I think it was a good reminderfor that, and as citizens we
have a responsibility to stayvigilant, ask questions, seek
transparency and transparencyand be willing to change
official narratives, especiallywhen they involve something as
personal and fundamental ashealth care and medicine.
(35:30):
So the chilling theory presentedin Haslam's book linking
cancer-causing viruses,government-sponsored experiments
and Dr Mary Sherman's deathforces us to think about the
unseen hands that might be atplay shaping our world.
For many, this is uncomfortableterritory.
It's easier to assume thatmedical breakthroughs, vaccines
and treatments are the result ofpure altruistic science, rather
(35:52):
than acknowledging thepossibility of darker agendas
tied to military or politicalinterests.
In recent years, we've seen howpublic health crises like the
COVID-19 pandemic can be both acatalyst for change and a
breeding ground for conspiracytheories.
The fears and doubts about thesafety of vaccines, the role of
pharmaceutical companies, theinfluence of government agencies
(36:14):
on public health policies areall threads that run parallel to
the concerns raised in thisbook.
So these issues remind us thatthe intersection of health care
and government power is fraughtwith complications.
We must tread carefully so thatwe can really truly separate
fact from fiction, separate factfrom fiction.
In today's post-pandemic world,the conversation about medical
(36:35):
ethics, transparency and scienceand the role of government
oversight is so much moreimportant than ever.
We need to ask what systems arein place to ensure that
experiments are conducted in thename of public health, don't
spiral into dangerous andunethical territories, and how
do we balance scientificprogress with personal autonomy
and individual rights?
I mean, I don't have the answerto these questions, but I mean
(36:58):
dang this, this book really,like I said I I expected kind of
a uh, uh, I don't know sexymurder type thing and uh and
it's made me like go allphilosophical and stuff and it's
kind of taken me to a darkplace honestly.
So rather than just readingabout a mysterious murder, I
(37:21):
started thinking aboutgovernment overreach, unethical
medical practices and the humancost of science gone wrong.
So it just reminded me that thepursuit of knowledge must always
be accompanied by ethicalresponsibility and that we as a
society have an obligation toquestion, examine and hold
accountable those who have powerto shape our world,
particularly in matters ofhealth and medicine.
(37:42):
This book challenged me toexamine the history that we're
taught more closely and questionthe stories that we've been
told.
In a world wrestling withquestions about ethics and
scientific progress, perhaps themost important question we can
ask is what are we willing tooverlook in the name of progress
, and at what cost?
And finally, I wanted to endwith we talked about last week
(38:05):
that I would mention individualsand groups that have been
considered suspects or personsof interest in Mary Sherman's
murder, and I'm going to go backto our orange-haired guy.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
David.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
Ferry.
Remember, he's that eccentricpilot with alleged ties to the
CIA and the anti-Castor groups.
He was most frequentlydiscussed in conspiracy theories
related to her death.
He was closely linked, as weknow, to Lee Harvey Oswald and
he was the alleged assassin ofPresident John F Kennedy.
(38:38):
The author of this book thoughthe was a suspect because,
according to the conspiracytheories, dr Sherman was
involved in those secretbioweapon cancer virus
researches aimed atassassinating Fidel.
And because Ferry was thisdouble agent, he was involved in
(39:00):
that and he had access to labs.
His connection to theassassination his name was
famously brought up during JimGarrison Remember he was the
district attorney into the theassassination of jfk garrison.
Believe ferry played a role inconspiracy and while his
connections to the murder of drdr sherman have never been
(39:23):
proven, his ties to the broaderweb of intrigue involving oswald
and the anti-castro effortsmake him a figure of suspicion
in the case.
And and then there's Lee HarveyOswald, the accused assassin of
JFK, who was reportedly linkedto both Ferry and Sherman
through various conspiracytheories, but no direct evidence
(39:43):
has emerged to link himspecifically to her death.
But some theorists speculatethat Dr Sherman's research might
have been connected because oftheir connection with
overthrowing Castro.
So you know that he might havebeen involved to silence Dr
Sherman, to protect this covertoperation.
(40:05):
This is speculative and there'sno concrete evidence.
Then there's Dr Alton Oxner,who she worked for.
He was the leader of thatclinic that was named after him.
He's a suspect.
He's often mentioned as asuspect because of his
connections to governmentagencies involved in,
specifically, biological warfareresearch and anti-Castro
(40:27):
operations, and she worked forhim.
So her death again could havebeen a way to cover up her work
for him.
But again there's no solidevidence to suggest he was
specifically involved.
And then there are some who saythat her murder might have
involved people with whom shecollaborated with in the lab.
I mean, she's a cancerresearcher, she worked with lots
of people.
(40:47):
She might have been involved inmany dangerous and secretive
experiments.
So it could have been acolleague who was involved in
the medical experiments.
And I think, like I proposedlast week, you know what, if she
had an accident, a terrible,awful accident that basically
disintegrated her arm during oneof these experiments, and then
(41:10):
they couldn't they couldn't letthat out there, you know, it
would have let the cat out ofthe bag and so they had to kill
her because, remember, the killwas the stab, not the losing her
rib cage in her arm from theburns.
So you know, that could havebeen just somebody in the lab,
could have been organized crime.
I mean, obviously we're alwaysthinking, oh, the mafia you know
(41:31):
crime figures were involved inillicit activities during that
period of time, especiallyrelated to Cuba.
You know, maybe, that it waslinked that way, but again,
that's purely speculative.
Some people believe that herdeath could have been related to
personal issues, like adomestic dispute or personal
vendetta, but there wasn't anyconfirmed reports that anyone
had anything against her or anypersonal or professional
(41:54):
conflict that would suggest thatas a motive.
And she was beloved, um, youknow.
But when we look at the brutalnature of her murder multiple
stab wounds, you know theyalways say this could have.
You know, this suggestsoverkill, which is typically
emotionally charged motive,right, crime of passion, yeah,
right, so I mean, that's it.
(42:18):
It's an unsolved case with lotsof different, interesting and
yet unprovable theories, butdefinitely a deep dive into some
of the activity around the timeand some of the things that she
was involved in that could haveexplained it.
But she leaves a legacy.
(42:38):
Whether she was a willingparticipant in dangerous
government research or anaccidental casualty, or a
whistleblower who paid theultimate price for speaking out,
it's still a mystery, but whatwe know is that her story
reflects the vulnerabilities ofthose who work in fields where
secrecy and dangerousexperimentation intersect.
Her legacy serves as a warningand a call to action for those
(42:59):
of us living in a world wheresuch experimentation is still
possible.
We need to ensure that thosewho participate in research,
whether as scientists, doctorsor government agents, are held
accountable to the highestethical standard.
We must also demand that thosein power be transparent about
their actions, especially whenthose actions involve the health
and well-being of the public.
And with that I'm going to getoff my soapbox.
(43:23):
That's a wrap.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
Dang girl, Let me give you a little Thank you.
Thank you so much for sharingthat.
Speaker 2 (43:32):
This one made me mad.
Speaker 1 (43:33):
I was mad for the monkeys, I was mad for you know
that's what I was going to sayMad for so many things Right,
and to not like get into thelike political conspiracy theory
anything, especially causepolitics are a hot thing right
now.
Speaker 2 (43:50):
Yeah, um, and I want, I just want to say this is not
political at all in terms oflike.
Nowadays, I'm honestly justreading the facts as they were
presented in the book.
Listen, she was, she was justat a bookstore, y'all.
Speaker 1 (44:04):
She thought this was just gonna be a murder book and
happened upon all of this stuff.
Um, so, with that, uh, andstaying away from the political
parts, uh, at the end of the day, poor mary sherman, I, it's the
stabbing for me, because theidea of it being an accident,
(44:26):
like oh shit, we got to coverthis up.
That made sense to me.
But like, why are we stabbingher multiple times?
Speaker 2 (44:35):
well, because, well, the what I, what makes the most
sense to me is that they wantedit to look like a psycho, came
in and murdered her so let's say, I know you guys, but her upper
extremities are melted off butshe wasn't dead.
That didn't kill her.
That happened first and itdidn't kill her.
What killed her was a stab tothe heart and that was the only
(44:58):
stab wound that happened whileshe was alive.
All of the other stabs weredone post-mortem and you know
that, because when you know theydo the autopsy, you know they
didn't bleed.
Yeah, because she was dead.
Speaker 1 (45:19):
The heart wasn't pumping.
Speaker 2 (45:20):
I just like this, like, okay, we're gonna make it
look like someone burgled yourhouse and stabbed you, but like
they're just gonna over overlookthis arm situation and your
ribcube.
Well, I mean, if, yeah, I thinkthey had to do something, yeah,
yeah, and that's why they setthem the pathetic little bit of
clothes and mattress on fire, asif that was gonna disintegrate
your arm.
You know, I think they werehoping that the police would
just be like oh house firedoctor, yeah stabbing in a house
(45:42):
fire.
Speaker 1 (45:43):
Yeah, well, it's a shame it was never solved.
And no justice for mary sherman, right, yeah, really.
Well, that was rip mary.
I'm hot, I can see why that hadto be a two-pata you did a
great job with your research.
Well, thank you, yes and uh, sowe can end on something
(46:05):
different.
We do have a medical mishap toshare.
Yay, bring it.
This medical mishap was sent inby Cheryl, and Cheryl writes.
As a parent, you always knowyour kid is going to get into
some trouble.
But my youngest son's stunttook it to a whole new level at
(46:26):
our house.
Uh-oh, he had come home fromschool one day all excited to
tell me about a genius idea hehad come up with to jump off the
roof into an inflatable pool,but that he would also use a
parachute for extra flair.
Naturally, I asked if he wasout of his mind and advised my
(46:48):
sweet young son that this was ahorrible idea.
But I'm just a mom.
No experience, no lifeexperience, what do I know?
On a sunday afternoon I heard athumping on the roof, and it
wasn't until I heard a splashsoon after in the backyard that
I realized it was him who was onthe roof and jumped off, just
as he said he wanted to oh no,he did in fact make it into the
(47:09):
pool, however.
He landed awkwardly on the edgeof it and twisted his ankle.
I was by his side in what feltlike an instant and he was
cautiously laughing.
But when he tried to stand upthe laughing stopped and I knew
it was serious.
His ankle was swollen andstarted to turn purple already
and he couldn't put weight on it.
We took him to the ER and theyconfirmed that he had fractured
(47:31):
his ankle and he ended up with acast.
He had told the doctor that hisparachute plan was way cooler
in theory.
Of course, I was mortified thatmy son still went through with
his master plan, but again, I'mjust a mom.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
What do I know?
Speaker 1 (48:03):
I'd like to think that he listened to he listens
to my advice much closer sincethat incident.
Speaker 2 (48:05):
Oh man, cheryl, I hope so, but you know what kids
will be kids, kids are gonna getright.
He just wanted to be asuperhero, so bad.
No, when you're less is hard,easy.
He's probably gonna end upbeing like a pilot or mountain
climber or something.
Definitely, oh my gosh, thankyou for sending that in.
Speaker 1 (48:17):
I love that, I do.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
So, Amanda, what can our listeners expect to hear
next?
Speaker 1 (48:26):
week.
Next week we are going to begoing all the way back to the
early 1900s to cover anotherquack doctor.
Or was she Tune in next week tohear all about it?
Speaker 2 (48:44):
I can't wait.
I love old-timey stories.
Speaker 1 (48:46):
I know it's a good one.
All right, so until then, don'tmiss a beat.
All right, so until then, don'tmiss a beat.
(49:09):
Subscribe or follow Doctoringthe Truth wherever gmail, and be
sure to follow us on instagramat doctoring the truth podcast
um.
Sidebar.
You may have already seen Iknow some of you have followed
our new instagram page.
Um, it's now doctoring thetruth podcast on instagram.
We had to make a separate loginbecause what I did first was
(49:33):
just log in, like make onethrough mine.
You know how y'all can do that,so I didn't have to log in and
out every time.
Well, that didn't work for us,so I had to make a new one.
Um, and I'm still need to liketransition everything to there,
whatever Long story short, it'sdoctoring the truth podcast.
Find us there, um.
Same.
(49:57):
Find us there um.
Same.
Thing's gonna happen with thefacebook, so stay tuned for that
.
And also don't forget todownload, rate and review so we
can be sure to bring you morecontent next week.
Until then, stay safe and staysuspicious suspicious okay,
goodbye.
Hello, hello, hello, hello.
How are you?
I am fabulous, how are you?
You know what?
Speaker 2 (00:12):
This morning was freezing out.
It was.
It was colder than a witch'shoo-ha.
But tonight the sun is out.
It's beautiful.
But I will tell you I do havemy blinds in my window.
That's in front of my recordingdesk at half mast, because last
week I was caught actuallysaying squirrel and then
(00:36):
interrupting the whole thing andlosing track of what we were
talking about so, yeah, yeah,that did happen, didn't it?
We should just let everyoneknow.
I mean, adhd is a thing,something shiny.
But I'm also trying to curtailit a little bit just for the
sake of the pod.
But yeah, so do you have anyplans for the spring?
(01:00):
Do you guys grow stuff?
Do you like to putz aroundoutside or hike?
Speaker 1 (01:07):
well, dog we did have a garden when we lived in
mankato before, and our newhouse came with a wildflower
garden and a large raised bedgarden.
The people that lived herebefore us didn't take very good
care of the garden in the falltime, so there's like old
(01:32):
vegetable carcasses out there.
But whatever, let's getfertilizer maybe.
Yeah, so, um, definitely I'm soexcited to get my flower
planters going.
Oh yeah, I have been patientlywaiting for the garden centers
to open, and on Monday was thatjust yesterday I drove to a
(02:02):
place that I see a kiddo at andI happened to go past Home Depot
to go there and they had theflowers out.
So probably this weekend I'mgoing to go buy a ton of flowers
and do my pots.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Yes, there's nothing like a planter.
I'm a big fan of a planter, andwhen those garden centers open,
it's time to break out open-toeseason for real.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Yes, we're also super excited.
The the yard came with thosegardens, which is interesting,
but they never did anylandscaping, so we have just
like a fresh slate.
So we get to like buy trees andshrubs and ah, I'm so excited
yeah, that's so cool.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
And then you know, a few years from now you'd be like
, oh, remember when we print, weplanted that little thing and
we brought it home in our carand now it's like 15 feet tall.
Yes, I'm so excited.
That is cool.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
How about you?
Do you have anything you wantto share?
Speaker 2 (02:55):
I mean, every year I have to do a bumper crop of
basil because I have to makepesto.
I love it so much, pesto, Ilove it so much.
Um, but this year I really, youknow, what I love is like when
summer's over and you've, like,your tomatoes are beyond, and
and all this, the herbs andstuff, I like to be able to go
(03:16):
out and discover a zucchini thesize of a toddler, you know, and
so because they come out alittle bit later and I forget
about them.
So I think this year we'regoing to go back to squash,
we're going to go back to squashland and and maybe some
pumpkins too, because, yeah, um,we live on kind of a a little
(03:38):
area that, you know, right downfrom our house dips into a
ravine, down to a river, and sowe like to go, we do our little
pumpkin thing and then, whenthey're beyond, we do pumpkin
bowling oh my gosh fun get itdown, down the road into.
I mean, it's the little thingsin life, right?
Speaker 1 (03:57):
so we need more pumpkins for our pumpkin bowling
I love that, yeah, and also canconfirm that your pesto is
chef's kiss.
I would like to dip a littlebaby.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
thank you, if this podcast doesn't work out, I'm
just gonna start pesto business.
You should, or maybe we could,market my pesto as, like Dr Nina
Truth pesto, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
I don't know what I would have to bring to the table
other than confirming that it'sdelicious.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Yeah, I guess murder isn't really appetizing to your
crime and health care, butanyway, not everything can match
or make sense.
That's what makes lifebeautiful.
Beautiful.
Oh, I do have a correctionsection uh.
Last week, like I said, I'mprobably on FBI list um to watch
(04:55):
Uh, but I had searched what ittakes to burn a body and um, I
said it took 600 to 2,000degrees.
This is really exciting, but no, it's 1,600 is what I meant to
say.
1,600 to 2,000 degreesFahrenheit for several hours,
and that's a recipe to burn abody.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
So just want to make sure everybody knows that.
So hopefully none of youactually need to know that, but
just some food for thought.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
So, yeah, you can't just do it on your you know,
broiler setting in your oven.
I mean, this has got to be thereal deal.
So yeah, we went from likeflowers and gardening to science
.
Um, anyway, so this week ispart two Monkeys, mice and Mary,
(05:47):
the Mysterious Murder of DrSherman.
Um, are you ready for this?
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Yeah, I can't wait to see what happens.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Did you re-buckle your seatbelt?
Oh, hang on, I'm in.
So I love that last.
Thank you for that, all rightin, so I'd love that last.
I thank you for that, all right.
Um, so information that wasobtained uh, it was obtained
from the same book that wetalked about last week, dr
mary's monkey, by edward haslamthe updated edition, because he
(06:16):
updated it like 10 years afterhe, I think in 2014, after he
learned some new stuff.
So, um, there's that, and thenany remaining sources will be
listed in our show notes.
And then I should give atrigger warning.
This episode containsinformation about the medical
experimentation of animals,which many consider animal abuse
(06:37):
.
So just be aware, I don't gointo terribly a lot of detail,
but there's some disturbingdetails, I will say so be warned
.
So last week we talked about thefact that key figures in New
Orleans' underground network ofspies, anti-castro operatives
and medical researchers may haveplayed a role in shaping the
(07:00):
events leading up to JFK's death.
The connections are eerie andfascinating.
So let's talk about some of theplayers here.
I'm not going to talk a lotabout JFK's death, but just the
connections I find aresurprising and fascinating.
So Lee Harvey Oswald was one.
He spent the summer of 1963 inNew Orleans, mingling with
(07:22):
anti-Castro groups while posingas a pro-Castro activist Ooh,
double agent.
His movements during this timeremain suspicious and some
believe intelligence agencieswere manipulating him.
If these theories hold anytruth, it suggests that Lee
Harvey Oswald was far more thana lone gunman.
(07:43):
Instead, he may have been apatsy caught up in a web of
covert operations, biologicalwarfare experiments and
CIA-backed plots.
Then there's David Ferry wetalked about member wig guy,
orange wig guy.
He's a former pilot.
He had ties to both Oswald andorganized crime and he was
(08:05):
allegedly working on secretunderground medical experiments.
So the book describes that hehad two apartments across the
street from one another.
One apartment was full of athousand or more white mice with
varying degrees of cancer,along with lab and medical
equipment, including a linearaccelerator, that particle
(08:25):
accelerator we talked about forradiating um.
The other apartment across thestreet was where he slept at
night.
I mean, I don't blame him.
Would you want to sleep withthousands of?
Speaker 1 (08:34):
mice.
No, I'm still dying over herethinking about it?
Speaker 2 (08:39):
um, when his apartment was searched after his
sudden death in 1967,investigators reportedly found
medical books, includingtreatises.
How do you say treatises?
Treatises on cancer research?
So yeah, written stuff aboutcancer research.
And then there's I don't knowif you remember that Mary
(09:00):
Sherman worked for Dr AltonOxner.
He is a respected but fiercelyanti-communist physician who
headed his own clinic called theOxner Clinic, where he
maintained deep connections withthe government and intelligence
community.
But how does Mary Sherman fitinto this picture?
Haslam theorizes that Shermanwas deeply involved in the
(09:21):
secret cancer research projectand may have died because of an
experiment gone wrong or becauseshe knew too much.
Her gruesome death, with burnsthat some believe resulted from
exposure to high voltageradiation, may have been a
cover-up to conceal what reallyhappened in her lab.
And, by the way, lee Oswald'sphone number was found in Mary
(09:41):
Sherman's address book, so theydefinitely knew each other.
And then there's Judith VaryBaker.
She's a woman who later claimedto be Oswald's lover and
insisted that she and Oswaldwere part of a secret project in
New Orleans involving cancerresearch.
She alleges that the goal wasto create a biological weapon
(10:01):
fast-acting cancer cells toassassinate foreign leaders like
Castro In 1963, the youngcancer researchers' specialized
skills were needed to weaponizecancer for the bioweapon, and
she was the one who transportedthe product of their cancer
research to Mary Sherman'sapartment for her review.
According to a book that shewrote titled Me and Lee how I
(10:25):
Came to Know, love and Lose, leeHarvey Oswald.
On August 28th 1963, theReverend Dr Martin Luther King
Jr delivered his I have a Dreamspeech in Washington DC during
the Civil Rights March.
The CORE Congress of RacialEquality had planned voter
(10:45):
registration drives for Blacksacross the country for the
following day, august 29, 1963.
So the highly segregatedClinton Louisiana was one of the
sites targeted by the COREoffice in Baton Rouge.
After a summer of killing miceand monkeys with their cancerous
cocktails, it was time to testthe concoction on a human.
(11:06):
On Thursday, august 29th, clayShaw drove David Ferry, lee
Oswald and the bioweapon toJackson, louisiana.
There they would need to getpast the guards and fences
surrounding the East LouisianaState Mental Hospital a facility
for the criminally insane.
Louisiana State Mental Hospitala facility for the criminally
(11:27):
insane to inject the bioweaponinto specially selected quote
volunteer end quote prisoners.
So methinks it's more likevolunforced yeah, voluntold to
be my prisoner.
Right Voluntold to be myexperiment victim.
The problem was this was goingto be difficult, since the
prisoner, or prisoners, werestill in nearby Angola
(11:48):
Penitentiary and needed to betransferred to the hospital in
Jackson.
Jackson, louisiana, is a tinytown where a black Cadillac
might just attract unwantedattention to the men
transporting the bioweapon.
Clinton Louisiana, however, wasjust down the road from Jackson
and was a slightly larger townwith a courthouse where cars
(12:08):
such as their fancy blackCadillac were commonly parked by
lawyers, judges and politicians.
So it was here that Clay Shawplanned to wait for a phone call
that said that the prisoner hadleft Angola and was en route to
the hospital in Jackson, andwas en route to the hospital in
Jackson.
Once the prisoner had left,shaw would proceed to Jackson to
(12:30):
rendezvous with the van fromAngola so that he could follow
it onto the mental hospitalgrounds, as if his black caddy
was part of the official convoyfrom Angola.
What Shaw and his buddiesexpected to find in Clinton that
day was an empty square infront of a small town courthouse
on a hot, humid Augustafternoon.
What they found instead,however, was a crowded square
(12:52):
with a bunch of angry whiteswatching unwanted Black voter
registration drive, with thetown's marshal surveying the
scene.
They had driven into the centerof a hotbed of civil rights
activity with everyone watching.
Finally, the payphone rang.
Shaw got his call and the caddyheaded to the hospital in
Jackson where someone from thegroup injected the prisoner
(13:15):
slash prisoners it was neverclear it was more than one
person with the cancer weapon.
Once that was done, shaw's teamstarted the long drive back to
New Orleans To determine if thebioweapon had been effective.
A blood test would need to beconducted 48 hours later, and
not just any blood test, it wasa blood titration test that only
(13:35):
a few people in the countryeven knew how to perform.
And guess what?
One of these people was JudahFerry Baker, lee Oswald's
girlfriend.
So two days later, at 11 am onAugust 31st 1963, lee Harvey
Oswald began driving JudithFerry Baker from New Orleans to
Jackson, Louisiana, so Judithcould perform the blood tests on
(13:58):
the prisoners slash prisonersto confirm that the cancer
cocktail had kicked in and ithad.
At the end of the day, leedropped Judith off at her house
at 1032 Marengo Street at 10 pm,and this was the end of
Judith's involvement with theproject, which had proven itself
by this time.
And remember how I mentionedlast week that Mary's apartment
(14:24):
was burgled like a month or sobefore her murder.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
So the same night that Lee dropped Judith off at
her house, around 11 pm, someonepried open the door to Mary
Sherman's apartment.
But Mary was not there.
Earlier that day she'd flown toLondon where she stayed for a
month.
The burglar removed thousandsof dollars of property from her
apartment.
(14:48):
Okay, so the development phaseof the bioweapon was over.
Mary left the country beforeJudith performed the blood
testing for cancer and by thetime the day was over, the
evidence that might have linkedMary to the project had been
stolen from her apartment.
All of her medical equipmenthad been removed from her
apartment.
A heavyset Cuban-looking manhad been seen near the area and
(15:09):
the net effect was that evidenceconnecting Mary Sherman to the
bioweapon plot had beensanitized.
So was Mary Sherman an innocentscientist caught up in a deadly
conspiracy?
Was Lee Harvey Oswald a pawn ina much larger game?
And did the medical experimentsin New Orleans play a role in
one of the greatest politicalassassinations of all time?
(15:31):
One thing is for certain thedeeper you dig, the stranger the
story becomes.
One of the most significantimpacts of Dr Mary's Monkey the
book is how it reinforcesskepticism towards official
government narratives.
Towards official governmentnarratives, the idea that
(15:51):
intelligence agencies may havebeen involved in secret medical
experiments or that they couldcover up.
Something as shocking asSherman's alleged high-voltage
radiation injuries feeds intolong-standing fears about what
the government isn't telling us.
In an era, I know right.
In an era when classifieddocuments continue to be
released about Cold Waroperations, the CIA's
(16:13):
involvement in biologicalresearch and even new details on
JFK's assassination, haslam'sbook reminds readers that those
in power often write history.
The more secrets that areuncovered, the more people
question the official record,question the official record.
The book also raises unsettlingquestions about medical
(16:33):
experimentation and the ethicsof scientific research.
The 20th century is litteredwith examples of unethical
medical studies, from theTuskegee syphilis experiment to
MKUltra, the CIA's mind controlprogram.
If Haslam's claims are evenpartially true, it suggests that
researchers may have conductedrisky, unregulated experiments
(16:55):
in the name of national security.
And now it's time for a gettingbetter at it.
Welcome to the chart notessegment, where we learn
something about what's happeningor what's happened in medicine
and healthcare.
So I wanted to know.
(17:17):
I knew about MKUltra and wecould do a whole episode on that
, or theories really, but Ididn't know about the Tuskegee
syphilis experiment.
So I looked into that and theTuskegee syphilis experiment was
an unethical clinical studyconducted in the United States
between 1932 and 1972 by the USPublic Health Service and the
(17:39):
Centers for Disease Control andPrevention in Tuskegee, alabama.
The study aimed to observe thenatural progression of untreated
syphilis in an African Americanmen without their informed
consent.
Can you believe this?
This is documented this isn'tconspiracy, this is a fact, this
(18:01):
is unfortunate fact.
Yeah, yeah.
So the study involves 600African, 600 African American
men.
That's so many.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
For one experiment that they didn't tell any of
them what's going on.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
That's a lot.
Yeah, it makes me so sadbecause you know they were
considered less than and so theyjust didn't have to.
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Well, my mind didn't even go there, I just was like
holy cats, 600 people.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
But yeah, you're right 600 people let alone, but
600, they probably paid them orsomething, and given the
demographics and those who werefortunate versus those who were
not, I mean anyway, so 399 hadsyphilis and 201 did not.
(18:51):
That was the control group, sothey were given syphilis.
By the way, they didn't justshow up to the study.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
That's what I was in my head.
I'm like how do they know theyhad syphilis?
Speaker 2 (19:02):
No, no, no.
They gave them syphilis Ofcourse they did 399 of these 600
men syphilis and 201 was thecontrol group out of this group
of 600.
The participants were neverinformed that they had syphilis,
but they were told they werebeating, being treated for bad
blood, which is a very vagueterm, and even after penicillin
(19:24):
was discovered as an effectivetreatment in 1943.
So if you let me just back upthis, the study started in 1932,
and went on until 1972.
Oh my gosh, 40 years, I know.
So in 1943, they had a solutionand effective treatment, but
the researchers didn't provideit to the participants or even
(19:47):
inform them about it.
The study continued for 40years, during which many of
these participants died,infected their spouses and
passed congenital syphilis totheir children.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
That's so sad.
I'm also thinking like if thistreatment came out in 1943, you
could at least not be an assholeto the extreme and make a third
group and do research at leaston how the treatment works right
, that's not what their interestwas, I suppose I mean this is
(20:20):
murder, right I mean?
Speaker 2 (20:22):
so I can't believe this happened.
So in 1972 the experiment wasexposed by the media, leading to
public outrage, and rightly so.
Um and its immediatetermination.
In 1973, the us government wassued and an out-of-court
settlement.
Don't you just love theout-of-court settlements where
they don't have to admit guiltand we don't know what the
(20:43):
financial compensation is butthere was financial compensation
to the victims and theirfamilies.
I mean, I'm sure that reallyhelped, you know, with those who
lost loved ones over this notto mention those who suffered
and the kids who grew up withcongenital sickness.
So I mean it's unbelievable,it's like made up but yet it
(21:08):
happened and it's out.
There know court records andwhatnot.
But in 1997 president billclinton issued an official, an
official public apology to thesurvivors on behalf of the us
government again.
I'm sure they felt really greatafter that I mean, it's
something I mean, but yeah, um,this experiment became a symbol
(21:29):
of medical racism and ethicalmisconduct in science, leading
to significant reforms inmedical research, including the
Belmont Report and theestablishment of institutional
review boards IRBs.
So tiny silver lining thatthere was some positive changes
(21:49):
after this.
But why did it have to takethis?
I mean, we're not talking abouta couple.
A couple people would have beenbad enough.
Yeah hundreds.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Yeah, oh my gosh um.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
So the tuskegee syphilis experiment had a
lasting impact on theafrican-american community's
trust in the uS healthcaresystem, which influences
attitudes towards medicalresearch, clinical trials and
vaccinations, and we see that tothis day.
Yeah, I could see that.
Could we do a whole series?
(22:23):
We could do a whole series I'masking myself a rhetorical
question in my notes here.
But we could do a whole serieson the MKUltra mind control
experiments, but there areplenty of documentaries and
podcasts out there if you'reinterested in in my notes here.
But we could do a whole serieson the MK Ultra Mind Control
Experiments.
But there are plenty ofdocumentaries and podcasts out
there if you're interested inlearning more about the whole
horrific, exploitative tortureof unsuspecting and innocent
people in the name of advancingintelligence.
So deep breath, ugh, yeah, Ihate it, yeah.
(22:46):
Then there's the potentialcontamination of the polio
vaccine with SV40, a monkeyvirus that some suspect could be
linked to cancer, which isespecially alarming and it
forces us to ask how much do weknow about the medicine we take?
Has scientific advancementscome at a hidden cost?
Could other unethicalexperiments still be happening
(23:07):
today under the guise ofnational security?
Speaker 1 (23:12):
I would say yes.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Back to the case.
While the scientific communitycontinues to debate the SB40
controversy, dr Mary's monkeyleft a lasting impact by keeping
these concerns alive in publicdiscourse.
Monkeys have played a criticalrole in medical research for
decades, contributing to some ofthe most important
breakthroughs in vaccines,neuroscience and disease
(23:36):
treatment.
But as science has advanced, sohave the ethical debates
surrounding the use of primatesin labs.
During the mid-20th century,monkeys played a crucial role in
the development of the poliovaccine.
Researchers, including Dr JonasSalk and Dr Albert Sabine, used
rhesus monkey kidney cells togrow the polio virus and develop
(23:58):
an effective vaccine.
This was a major victory forpublic health, virtually
eradicating polio in much of theworld.
At the same time, primates werealso being used in cancer
research, radiation studies andeven covert government projects.
According to Dr Mary's, monkeysecret experiments in New
Orleans involved infectingmonkeys with cancer-causing
(24:19):
viruses, allegedly as part of aneffort to understand how cancer
spreads and to possiblyweaponize it.
As we've talked about, thesimian virus SV40, which
contaminated some batches of thepolio vaccine in the 1950s,
later became a controversialtopic, with some scientists
questioning whether itcontributed to human cancer
(24:40):
cases.
Haslam makes a compellingconnection between this virus,
the polio vaccine and the cancerresearch that Dr Sherman was
allegedly conducting.
He suggests that the SV40 virus, which was carried by monkeys
used to grow the vaccine, mayhave played a role in triggering
cancer in humans, leading to acancer epidemic decades later.
(25:00):
While this remains acontroversial theory, haslam
ties the SV40 contaminationdirectly to the monkey research
conducted by Sherman and hercolleagues.
He argues that the CIA andother government agencies were
not only using monkeys forcancer research, but they were
also experimenting with the veryviruses that might end up
contaminating vaccines.
The larger implication here isthat the use of monkeys in
(25:23):
medical research and theunregulated viral
experimentation could havefar-reaching consequences,
leading to unforeseen healthcrises.
This event also underscores thedangers of government-sponsored
medical experimentation, wherepublic health is sometimes
compromised for political ormilitary objectives.
It raises questions about howmuch we truly understand about
(25:46):
the long-term effects of medicalresearch, especially when it
involves potential contaminationof everyday medical treatment
like vaccines.
As medical research advanced, sodid ethical concerns about the
use of primates in labs.
By the 1960s, animal rightsadvocates were beginning to
challenge the widespread use ofmonkeys in experiments, raising
(26:06):
concerns about suffering andhumane treatment.
Many experiments involved highradiation exposure, surgical
procedures, disease injections,often without pain relief.
The author describes helpinghis father at work when he was
in his teens and coming acrossthe Simian Studies Lab at the
hospital campus in Tulane.
It held monkeys with metalplates on their heads.
(26:27):
Their skulls had been toppedoff, electrodes inserted into
their brains, and then theelectrodes were soldered to a
metal plate that was fused tothe top of their heads.
This way the researchers couldperform experiments and measure
the monkeys' brains' responsesto various stimuli, drugs et
cetera.
I mean, wow, so the necessity ofprimate research?
(26:51):
I mean, as technology improves,some scientists question
whether or not primates arestill essential for medical
progress, especially with thedevelopment of cell cultures and
computer modeling.
Do we really need to be, youknow, using animals and watching
them suffer?
Even a mouse?
You, you know?
Yeah, I don't like that.
I know I hate it too.
(27:13):
The long-term impact were someexperiments like those described
in Dr Mary's Monkey, conductedrecklessly in the name of Cold
War science.
By the 1970s and beyond,regulations such as the Animal
Welfare Act imposed stricterguidelines on the use of
primates in medical research.
Today the debate continues,with researchers balancing the
(27:35):
need for scientific progresswith growing calls for
alternative testing methods.
I mean, I get the conundrum, Iget the dichotomy here.
Like, we want to save humansand you know we can't use humans
, as literally the phrase saysguinea pigs right, so that means
(27:59):
we can use guinea pigs?
I mean, I get it.
Are you going to sacrifice aguinea pig for a cure for cancer
?
Right, yeah, but I don't.
You know what.
Where's the line?
So I'm not saying I have theanswer to this and I'm not
saying I judge this and I'mdefinitely not saying don't
trust your vaccines.
I'm just saying it's had a, a,um, a sketchy history in its
(28:23):
origins.
You know Um and who's to say.
I mean, I think I've had likesix COVID vaccines and I have
asthma and I've gotten COVID andnot died.
So is it because I had thevaccines?
Like, I'm not a conspiracytheorist, but I can see where,
at some point, in order for usto advance to save human life,
like, do we do it at the cost ofanimals or do we have enough
(28:46):
technology now where we don'teven have to sacrifice anything,
we can protect all life and anduse predictive ai and computer
modeling?
Speaker 1 (28:56):
I don't know, it's above my pay grade, but I'm just
thinking out loud, I like whereyour head's at though yeah, I
want to save the mice, themonkeys and the humans you know,
I know, I know I'm just yeah, Ijust can't stop thinking this
is not.
I'm not going to go too farinto this rabbit hole, but I
(29:17):
drive a lot for work now andevery time I pass a truck full
of chickens or piggies and Iknow they're not going for
medical experience or going forbutcher, but I'm just like, oh
my gosh.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
God yeah.
But I mean I love, I love me agood chicken wing, I love me
bacon and it's like, but I wantto cry when I see those little
piggies on their way to market.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Every time I pass them I have to message my friend
Michaela, and I'm like MichaelaI just passed a truck full of
cute little piggy butts, butlike I'm still going to eat
bacon, like me, stopping eatingthem is not going to save them
all I know, but if everyone saidthey were going to stop eating?
I know that's where the troubleis the demand.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
I know right, but bacon is so good and I know so.
Maybe the difference is youknow, I don't know.
You're right, we're going downa rabbit hole.
Let's just decide we'rehypocrites, but hopefully it's a
quick death.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
Yes, and they don't have metal plates in their head
with electrodes.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
And they're just like causing pain and injury and
harm and then watching whathappens, like I don't know.
There's something sadisticalmost about that in the name of
science, um, and as someone wholoves science, I just I don't
know.
I see the name, but I alsothink gosh, we should probably.
Yeah, exactly, thank you for.
Thank you for that.
That's exactly what I meant tosay anyway.
(30:49):
So, um, in this book I wasreading I mean, I did not
bargain for this I thought I wasgoing to get a juicy moida,
maybe a little bit of voodoo.
I was in a, I was in a littlelittle dusty curio shop and off
of, uh, bourbon street and uh,here we go with all this
conspiracy stuff that I honestlytry to avoid.
(31:09):
But, my my God, some of this isjust eye-opening, which I
probably needed.
So, all right, there's that.
So, even though the book delvesinto a lot of conspiracy
theories, there was a lot of.
You know, what interested mewere the undercurrents of the
(31:29):
cold war, science, thegovernment, secrecy, the
intersections of the medicalethics versus espionage, um, so
I wanted to look at those eventsin greater detail and explore
their implications.
So, obviously the most pivotalevent, and the reason I bought
the book, is the brutal murderof dr Mary Sherman in 1964.
(31:50):
And, as we know, she was arespected orthopedic surgeon and
cancer researcher and was foundin her New Orleans apartment
stabbed multiple times.
But what makes her murder sosuspicious and arguably tied to
some of these largerconspiracies were the unusual
burns on her body.
So some experts suggested thatthe burns, as we talked about,
(32:12):
could have only been caused byexposure to high-voltage
radiation, and that theorypoints directly to her
involvement in dangerous medicalexperiments.
So the official narrativedescribes her death as a random
act of violence, but Haslamsuggests that her research into
the cancer-causing viruses mayhave made her a target and, more
chillingly, he connects herdeath to cover-up efforts,
(32:33):
possibly orchestrated bypowerful figures involved in a
secret cancer project aimed ateliminating Castro.
So Sherman's gruesome injuries,he argues, weren't just the
result of a murder.
They were a way to erase atrail that led straight to
covert government operations.
So the larger implications hereare the idea that governments
can be involved in weaponizingdiseases for political purposes,
(32:56):
and that raises questions aboutthe lengths to which certain
agencies might go in the name ofnational security.
And it also highlights thepotential dangers of unethical
medical experimentation, wherethe line between research and
warfare is dangerously blurred.
So while much of theexperimentation discussed in the
book happened in the mid-20thcentury, this theme is still
(33:18):
painfully relevant today.
Medical research is evolvingrapidly and the temptation to
bend ethical guidelines in thename of finding new cures or
creating breakthrough treatmentsis ever present.
The question remains what priceare we willing to pay?
The ethical dilemmas of thisera continue to be felt.
While vaccines and cancertreatments have saved millions
of lives, the shadow of earlyexperimentation, often conducted
(33:41):
without full transparency,raises questions about the cost
of medical progress.
We don't need to look far tosee the ethical questions that
still surround genetic research,human trials and artificial
intelligence in healthcare.
The legacy of unethicalexperiments like those described
in this book remind us thatvigilance is key.
We must continue to askourselves whether our hunger for
(34:03):
progress sometimes blinds us tothe potential harm or
exploitation that could occurbehind the scenes.
The other lingering theme in thebook is government secrecy, the
idea that those in powersometimes choose to hide the
truth to protect nationalinterests or, worse, to cover up
the ugly consequences of theirown actions, whether it's the
JFK assassination, covertbiological warfare or the
(34:25):
contamination of vaccines.
Haslam paints a picture of aworld where secrecy is not only
the norm but an active tool usedto manipulate the public and
hide the darker sides ofgovernment operations.
It's a theme that feelsparticularly timely today, in an
age of mass surveillance,disinformation and intelligence
leaks, the idea that governmentsare capable of hiding dangerous
(34:47):
truths from the public is morerelevant than ever.
The classified nature ofresearch and military projects,
the manipulation of narrativesand the erasure of inconvenient
facts still occurs today, andsometimes with real consequences
.
So one thing we learned fromthis book is that trust in our
(35:08):
leaders and institutions must beearned and not given freely.
I think it was a good reminderfor that, and as citizens we
have a responsibility to stayvigilant, ask questions, seek
transparency and transparencyand be willing to change
official narratives, especiallywhen they involve something as
personal and fundamental ashealth care and medicine.
(35:30):
So the chilling theory presentedin Haslam's book linking
cancer-causing viruses,government-sponsored experiments
and Dr Mary Sherman's deathforces us to think about the
unseen hands that might be atplay shaping our world.
For many, this is uncomfortableterritory.
It's easier to assume thatmedical breakthroughs, vaccines
and treatments are the result ofpure altruistic science, rather
(35:52):
than acknowledging thepossibility of darker agendas
tied to military or politicalinterests.
In recent years, we've seen howpublic health crises like the
COVID-19 pandemic can be both acatalyst for change and a
breeding ground for conspiracytheories.
The fears and doubts about thesafety of vaccines, the role of
pharmaceutical companies, theinfluence of government agencies
(36:14):
on public health policies areall threads that run parallel to
the concerns raised in thisbook.
So these issues remind us thatthe intersection of health care
and government power is fraughtwith complications.
We must tread carefully so thatwe can really truly separate
fact from fiction, separate factfrom fiction.
In today's post-pandemic world,the conversation about medical
(36:35):
ethics, transparency and scienceand the role of government
oversight is so much moreimportant than ever.
We need to ask what systems arein place to ensure that
experiments are conducted in thename of public health, don't
spiral into dangerous andunethical territories, and how
do we balance scientificprogress with personal autonomy
and individual rights?
I mean, I don't have the answerto these questions, but I mean
(36:58):
dang this, this book really,like I said I I expected kind of
a uh, uh, I don't know sexymurder type thing and uh and
it's made me like go allphilosophical and stuff and it's
kind of taken me to a darkplace honestly.
So rather than just readingabout a mysterious murder, I
(37:21):
started thinking aboutgovernment overreach, unethical
medical practices and the humancost of science gone wrong.
So it just reminded me that thepursuit of knowledge must always
be accompanied by ethicalresponsibility and that we as a
society have an obligation toquestion, examine and hold
accountable those who have powerto shape our world,
particularly in matters ofhealth and medicine.
(37:42):
This book challenged me toexamine the history that we're
taught more closely and questionthe stories that we've been
told.
In a world wrestling withquestions about ethics and
scientific progress, perhaps themost important question we can
ask is what are we willing tooverlook in the name of progress
, and at what cost?
And finally, I wanted to endwith we talked about last week
(38:05):
that I would mention individualsand groups that have been
considered suspects or personsof interest in Mary Sherman's
murder, and I'm going to go backto our orange-haired guy.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
David.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
Ferry.
Remember, he's that eccentricpilot with alleged ties to the
CIA and the anti-Castor groups.
He was most frequentlydiscussed in conspiracy theories
related to her death.
He was closely linked, as weknow, to Lee Harvey Oswald and
he was the alleged assassin ofPresident John F Kennedy.
(38:38):
The author of this book thoughthe was a suspect because,
according to the conspiracytheories, dr Sherman was
involved in those secretbioweapon cancer virus
researches aimed atassassinating Fidel.
And because Ferry was thisdouble agent, he was involved in
(39:00):
that and he had access to labs.
His connection to theassassination his name was
famously brought up during JimGarrison Remember he was the
district attorney into the theassassination of jfk garrison.
Believe ferry played a role inconspiracy and while his
connections to the murder of drdr sherman have never been
(39:23):
proven, his ties to the broaderweb of intrigue involving oswald
and the anti-castro effortsmake him a figure of suspicion
in the case.
And and then there's Lee HarveyOswald, the accused assassin of
JFK, who was reportedly linkedto both Ferry and Sherman
through various conspiracytheories, but no direct evidence
(39:43):
has emerged to link himspecifically to her death.
But some theorists speculatethat Dr Sherman's research might
have been connected because oftheir connection with
overthrowing Castro.
So you know that he might havebeen involved to silence Dr
Sherman, to protect this covertoperation.
(40:05):
This is speculative and there'sno concrete evidence.
Then there's Dr Alton Oxner,who she worked for.
He was the leader of thatclinic that was named after him.
He's a suspect.
He's often mentioned as asuspect because of his
connections to governmentagencies involved in,
specifically, biological warfareresearch and anti-Castro
(40:27):
operations, and she worked forhim.
So her death again could havebeen a way to cover up her work
for him.
But again there's no solidevidence to suggest he was
specifically involved.
And then there are some who saythat her murder might have
involved people with whom shecollaborated with in the lab.
I mean, she's a cancerresearcher, she worked with lots
of people.
(40:47):
She might have been involved inmany dangerous and secretive
experiments.
So it could have been acolleague who was involved in
the medical experiments.
And I think, like I proposedlast week, you know what, if she
had an accident, a terrible,awful accident that basically
disintegrated her arm during oneof these experiments, and then
(41:10):
they couldn't they couldn't letthat out there, you know, it
would have let the cat out ofthe bag and so they had to kill
her because, remember, the killwas the stab, not the losing her
rib cage in her arm from theburns.
So you know, that could havebeen just somebody in the lab,
could have been organized crime.
I mean, obviously we're alwaysthinking, oh, the mafia you know
(41:31):
crime figures were involved inillicit activities during that
period of time, especiallyrelated to Cuba.
You know, maybe, that it waslinked that way, but again,
that's purely speculative.
Some people believe that herdeath could have been related to
personal issues, like adomestic dispute or personal
vendetta, but there wasn't anyconfirmed reports that anyone
had anything against her or anypersonal or professional
(41:54):
conflict that would suggest thatas a motive.
And she was beloved, um, youknow.
But when we look at the brutalnature of her murder multiple
stab wounds, you know theyalways say this could have.
You know, this suggestsoverkill, which is typically
emotionally charged motive,right, crime of passion, yeah,
right, so I mean, that's it.
(42:18):
It's an unsolved case with lotsof different, interesting and
yet unprovable theories, butdefinitely a deep dive into some
of the activity around the timeand some of the things that she
was involved in that could haveexplained it.
But she leaves a legacy.
(42:38):
Whether she was a willingparticipant in dangerous
government research or anaccidental casualty, or a
whistleblower who paid theultimate price for speaking out,
it's still a mystery, but whatwe know is that her story
reflects the vulnerabilities ofthose who work in fields where
secrecy and dangerousexperimentation intersect.
Her legacy serves as a warningand a call to action for those
(42:59):
of us living in a world wheresuch experimentation is still
possible.
We need to ensure that thosewho participate in research,
whether as scientists, doctorsor government agents, are held
accountable to the highestethical standard.
We must also demand that thosein power be transparent about
their actions, especially whenthose actions involve the health
and well-being of the public.
And with that I'm going to getoff my soapbox.
(43:23):
That's a wrap.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
Dang girl, Let me give you a little Thank you.
Thank you so much for sharingthat.
Speaker 2 (43:32):
This one made me mad.
Speaker 1 (43:33):
I was mad for the monkeys, I was mad for you know
that's what I was going to sayMad for so many things Right,
and to not like get into thelike political conspiracy theory
anything, especially causepolitics are a hot thing right
now.
Speaker 2 (43:50):
Yeah, um, and I want, I just want to say this is not
political at all in terms oflike.
Nowadays, I'm honestly justreading the facts as they were
presented in the book.
Listen, she was, she was justat a bookstore, y'all.
Speaker 1 (44:04):
She thought this was just gonna be a murder book and
happened upon all of this stuff.
Um, so, with that, uh, andstaying away from the political
parts, uh, at the end of the day, poor mary sherman, I, it's the
stabbing for me, because theidea of it being an accident,
(44:26):
like oh shit, we got to coverthis up.
That made sense to me.
But like, why are we stabbingher multiple times?
Speaker 2 (44:35):
well, because, well, the what I, what makes the most
sense to me is that they wantedit to look like a psycho, came
in and murdered her so let's say, I know you guys, but her upper
extremities are melted off butshe wasn't dead.
That didn't kill her.
That happened first and itdidn't kill her.
What killed her was a stab tothe heart and that was the only
(44:58):
stab wound that happened whileshe was alive.
All of the other stabs weredone post-mortem and you know
that, because when you know theydo the autopsy, you know they
didn't bleed.
Yeah, because she was dead.
Speaker 1 (45:19):
The heart wasn't pumping.
Speaker 2 (45:20):
I just like this, like, okay, we're gonna make it
look like someone burgled yourhouse and stabbed you, but like
they're just gonna over overlookthis arm situation and your
ribcube.
Well, I mean, if, yeah, I thinkthey had to do something, yeah,
yeah, and that's why they setthem the pathetic little bit of
clothes and mattress on fire, asif that was gonna disintegrate
your arm.
You know, I think they werehoping that the police would
just be like oh house firedoctor, yeah stabbing in a house
(45:42):
fire.
Speaker 1 (45:43):
Yeah, well, it's a shame it was never solved.
And no justice for mary sherman, right, yeah, really.
Well, that was rip mary.
I'm hot, I can see why that hadto be a two-pata you did a
great job with your research.
Well, thank you, yes and uh, sowe can end on something
(46:05):
different.
We do have a medical mishap toshare.
Yay, bring it.
This medical mishap was sent inby Cheryl, and Cheryl writes.
As a parent, you always knowyour kid is going to get into
some trouble.
But my youngest son's stunttook it to a whole new level at
(46:26):
our house.
Uh-oh, he had come home fromschool one day all excited to
tell me about a genius idea hehad come up with to jump off the
roof into an inflatable pool,but that he would also use a
parachute for extra flair.
Naturally, I asked if he wasout of his mind and advised my
(46:48):
sweet young son that this was ahorrible idea.
But I'm just a mom.
No experience, no lifeexperience, what do I know?
On a sunday afternoon I heard athumping on the roof, and it
wasn't until I heard a splashsoon after in the backyard that
I realized it was him who was onthe roof and jumped off, just
as he said he wanted to oh no,he did in fact make it into the
(47:09):
pool, however.
He landed awkwardly on the edgeof it and twisted his ankle.
I was by his side in what feltlike an instant and he was
cautiously laughing.
But when he tried to stand upthe laughing stopped and I knew
it was serious.
His ankle was swollen andstarted to turn purple already
and he couldn't put weight on it.
We took him to the ER and theyconfirmed that he had fractured
(47:31):
his ankle and he ended up with acast.
He had told the doctor that hisparachute plan was way cooler
in theory.
Of course, I was mortified thatmy son still went through with
his master plan, but again, I'mjust a mom.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
What do I know?
Speaker 1 (48:03):
I'd like to think that he listened to he listens
to my advice much closer sincethat incident.
Speaker 2 (48:05):
Oh man, cheryl, I hope so, but you know what kids
will be kids, kids are gonna getright.
He just wanted to be asuperhero, so bad.
No, when you're less is hard,easy.
He's probably gonna end upbeing like a pilot or mountain
climber or something.
Definitely, oh my gosh, thankyou for sending that in.
Speaker 1 (48:17):
I love that, I do.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
So, Amanda, what can our listeners expect to hear
next?
Speaker 1 (48:26):
week.
Next week we are going to begoing all the way back to the
early 1900s to cover anotherquack doctor.
Or was she Tune in next week tohear all about it?
Speaker 2 (48:44):
I can't wait.
I love old-timey stories.
Speaker 1 (48:46):
I know it's a good one.
All right, so until then, don'tmiss a beat.
All right, so until then, don'tmiss a beat.
(49:09):
Subscribe or follow Doctoringthe Truth wherever gmail, and be
sure to follow us on instagramat doctoring the truth podcast
um.
Sidebar.
You may have already seen Iknow some of you have followed
our new instagram page.
Um, it's now doctoring thetruth podcast on instagram.
We had to make a separate loginbecause what I did first was
(49:33):
just log in, like make onethrough mine.
You know how y'all can do that,so I didn't have to log in and
out every time.
Well, that didn't work for us,so I had to make a new one.
Um, and I'm still need to liketransition everything to there,
whatever Long story short, it'sdoctoring the truth podcast.
Find us there, um.
Same.
(49:57):
Find us there um.
Same.
Thing's gonna happen with thefacebook, so stay tuned for that
.
And also don't forget todownload, rate and review so we
can be sure to bring you morecontent next week.
Until then, stay safe and staysuspicious suspicious okay,
goodbye.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.