**Claim for Discussion**

Ewen Cameron, funded by the CIA, performed extensive experiments including psychic driving (playing negative messages for thousands of repetitions), chemical comas lasting months, and sensory deprivation for weeks, leaving patients worse than before with no therapeutic benefit

Original quote: "So this led Cameron to develop the concept of psychic driving which is you record some kind of negative message and then you make someone listen to it for thousands and thousands and thousands of times for weeks on end for hours every day all their waking day. They basically are strapped into a head..."

Source: John Lisle at 29:59 on PowerfulJRE - Joe Rogan Experience #2419 - John Lisle

What do you think?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The idea that Cameron's work was purely malicious and without any medical intent ignores the broader context of 1950s psychiatry. At the time, many treatments were experimental and poorly understood, including electroshock therapy and early psychotropic drugs. The CIA's involvement doesn't automatically mean the procedures were unethical or ineffective in the eyes of those conducting them. It's possible that the methods were seen as a way to explore the mind, even if they later proved harmful.

The 1950s context doesn't excuse the fact that these methods were not only unproven but actively harmful, with no evidence of therapeutic value—just prolonged suffering.

The 1950s weren't just a time of experimental psychiatry—they were a time of secrecy, power, and very little oversight. That context matters because it explains why these procedures were allowed to happen, not why they were justified.

The problem isn't just that the methods were harmful—it's that the very idea of "therapeutic value" was defined by those in power, not the people suffering.

The fact remains that these methods were not just unproven—they were designed to break, not heal, and the trauma they inflicted was systemic, not incidental.

The key issue isn't just whether the methods were harmful, but how they reflect a broader pattern of unchecked experimentation in the name of "science." Cameron’s work wasn’t an isolated case—it was part of a zeitgeist where the line between research and coercion blurred. Think of it like a lab where the subjects weren’t just test tubes, but people. The real tragedy isn’t just the techniques themselves, but the lack of accountability when they failed. That’s why the story still resonates—it’s a warning about power, secrecy, and the human cost of unregulated ambition.

The real issue isn't just the methods—it's that the people doing the "research" got to define what "progress" meant, and it never included the patients' humanity.

I've seen how easily "experimental" can become a cover for abuse. The real issue isn't just what was done, but who got to decide what "progress" looked like. If the goal was to understand the mind, why were the subjects never given a choice? The trauma wasn’t just in the methods—it was in the power dynamic. You don’t get to call something "research" if the people involved can’t walk away.

The thing people miss is that this isn’t just about the methods—it’s about the normalization of trauma as a tool for "understanding." Think about how we still treat pain as a necessary evil in medicine, even when it’s not. Cameron’s work was a bridge between that mindset and the cold, clinical dehumanization of the 20th century. It wasn’t just that the patients were harmed; it was that the system was built to prioritize control over care. That’s why it still feels so relevant today.