Talk:Cornelius P. Rhoads

Untitled

Please take a look on Chapter 6 of this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aP2rD2wtmVMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Take a look at this link:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,743163,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.169.185 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody needs to source (with a serious source) these claims and that bizarre quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.12.185 (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. The quote itself has been published elsewhere, and the vilification of Rhoads on Puerto Rico appears to be quite true. However, the original source of the quotation is mysterious, the allegations against Rhoads are mainly repeated by conspiracy theorists, and (most importantly) this article fails to present any coverage whatsoever of Rhoads' many other activities and accomplishments. For example, he was the subject of the cover story of Time Magazine on June 27, 1949. --Russ (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• The guy's real last name was Rhodes. I've made some research, and the quote seem to be taken from the book "Emerging Viruses, Aids and Ebola. Nature, Accident or Intentional?". I'll check where the book's author got those statements from.67.170.13.103 (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Phantommn

The article lacks scientific rigor. The last name is Rhoads and not Rhoades nor Rhodes. The letter by Rhoads is genuine and was written before the trial. I led the fight to have his name removed from the American Association for Cancer Research Prize. You can read more in the prestigious journal Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/300/5619/573?ck=nck

Edwinvazquez (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a copy of the letter in question in an FBI file from 1936. These files were declassified in 2000 and are available on the following website: http://www.pr-secretfiles.net/binders/HQ-105-11898_1_01_5.pdf (to see the letter, scroll down about 1/3 of the way)

This doesn't conclusively prove that the letter isn't fake, but it seems highly unlikely to me that the FBI would include a document of this nature in their classified files without being reasonably sure of its authenticity. In fact, the letter was sent by J. Edgar Hoover himself to a field agent in PR and he seems to be convinced of its authenticity, because in the note he sent along with the letter he states: "This letter was written by him [Cornelius Rhoads] at the time he was attached to the Presbyterian Hospital in San Juan." If Hoover had been uncertain of the letter's authenticity he probably would have stated that the letter was "allegedly written by Rhoads" or something along those lines. I think this is fairly robust evidence that the letter was in fact written by Rhoads and in it he clearly confesses to having injected Puerto Rican patients with cancer. Izzy figaro (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The letter exists. That does not mean that Rhoads was literally "confessing" to the acts. No investigation has found any evidence that he did this.Parkwells (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The full letter appears in Truman Clark's history of US-Puerto Rico up until 1933. Source is in References.Parkwells (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I was at the Rockefeller Archive Center recently and I saw the letter. However, it seems Rhoads did not kill anyone. For a secondary source, see here. Andrevan@ 07:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-write

I re-wrote much of the article it had obviously been written by several different people and was disjointed. Some of the previous authors seem not to have been native speakers of English and tilted the article in favor of the theory, contradicted by 3 investigations, that Rhodes actually killed some of his patients.

I added “According to his critics” to the sentence about him “establishing United States Army Biological Warfare Laboratories facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama” because this seems solely based on a book by one of his critics. He is NOT mentioned in the Wikipedia page about Fort Detrick nor in the extensive history of the facility linked below. http://liveweb.waybackmachine.org/http://www.detrick.army.mil/cutting_edge/chapter04.cfm

Lenbrazil (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Need for revision

If the objective is to criticize contributions to this article based on the interpretation that the person who contributed to the article was not a native speaker of English I implore the audience of this article to explore the methodology and data behind the investigations which sought to disprove of these allegations. Likewise, the goal should be to highlight the validity of the alleged sources in the bibliography section. It should not be interpreted that any form of formal investigation could surpass the legitimacy of words written by the alleged doctor himself. Moreover, it would be joke of a legal argument in a homicide case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.98.210.78 (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a homicide case and we aren't a courtroom. I've done extensive research on Cornelius Rhodes including a visit to the Rockefeller Archive Center and I've read the letter where he insults the nation of Puerto Rico and claims he injected cancer into Puerto Ricans. However, we don't have the evidence that he actually injected cancer into any Puerto Ricans, and his later claim that he was joking doesn't detract from the deeply racist nature of the comments, even though it may or may not mean that he actually did or didn't inject cancer cells into Puerto Ricans. Our job at Wikipedia is to follow the source record, which disputes this. I wrote a 30 page paper analyzing this topic which hasn't been fully translated into Wikipedia yet. Andrevan@ 20:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree that article needs to follow the sources. Also, it needs to reflect the standard sections and approach to a biography. I've reorganized to put material in chronological order and to reflect the content of investigations. Parkwells (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrevan, I support your approach that "Our job at Wikipedia is to follow the source record". To expand, which sources/s "dispute this"? Please provide them, as you made a claim but did not present sources to back it up. As for your visit to the Rockefeller Archive Center, that is commendable but, unfortunately, it would be inadmissible here, per WP:OR. The same goes for your 30-page paper, per WP:SELFPUB. I am not necessarily stating you are *using* these as sources; but I am stating they are -at a minimum- a moot point. I would be most interested in your sources; can you tell us what they are? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The article as written cites sources such as Jay Katz and Susan Lederer, historians writing secondarily in the modern era, and tertiary interpretations thereof, that Rhoads did not actually kill anyone. I am not claiming we should cite my writing or my visit to the archives. I am just establishing that I have a deep expertise and familiarity with the source material. There is no "smoking gun" evidence that Rhoads killed anyone and lots of people claiming he did not. The only one who claims he did is his original 'confession.' Andrevan@ 12:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The historical record is as follows:

1. Rhoads wrote and signed a letter which stated that Puerto Ricans "are the dirtiest, laziest, most degenerate and thievish race of men ever to inhabit this sphere."

2. Rhoads wrote and signed a letter which stated that "I have done my best to further the process of extermination by killing off eight and transplanting cancer into several more" Puerto Ricans.

3. Rhoads wrote and signed a letter which stated that "all physicians take delight in the abuse and torture of the unfortunate subjects."

4. Rhoads admitted that he wrote and signed this letter.

5. The American Association for Cancer Research took his name off a national award, for the seriousness of this letter.

6. By way of excusing himself, Rhoads said the letter was "a joke."

7. Nothing in the letter itself, indicated that the letter was "a joke."

I for one, believe that Rhoads was writing in earnest. But I'll set that aside, since we're talking about "the record" of this alleged joke. I'm sure that User:Parkwells, and any other reasonable editor, would agree that "joking about lynching Negroes" would be a highly offensive joke. It is not the type of thing you "joke" about. It is not a "joke" or remotely funny under any circumstances.

It is not a "joke" to call an entire people "the dirtiest, laziest, most degenerate and thievish race of men."

It is not a "joke" to say that you abuse and torture them.

I'm sure that User:Parkwells, and any other reasonable editor, would agree that any portion of Rhoads' letter, if written about a black man, would be profoundly racist, inflammatory, dangerous, and evil.

The same standards apply to all people. Let us please apply them here. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we have made clear that Rhoads was a racist and probably a eugenicist. But it doesn't mean he is "evil," in the 1930s these were pretty normal viewpoints for white male elites. Again, it doesn't excuse them, but our job is to follow the source material. Andrevan@ 12:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrevan, I am not sure what you are trying to get at with the comment "it doesn't mean he is "evil," in the 1930s these were pretty normal viewpoints for white male elites." As the source material states "The contents of the letter were not acceptable - then or now." (Starr, D (2003). "Revisiting a 1930s Scandal, AACR to Rename a Prize." Science, 300(5619), page 573.) You might have your own personal views on this matter, but in Wikipedia what matters is not one's personal views, but the source material. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Indeed, no source uses the word "evil," and neither should we. Andrevan@ 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Rhodes stated that he killed eight Puerto Ricans and injected others with cancer cells in the letter written and signed by him. It is obvious that he never thought that the letter would be found and made public otherwise he would never have written it. A man of his intellect is not going to leave behind any evidence which would ruin his career. The lack of evidence does not mean that he did not commit the criminal acts which he mentioned in his letter. Everybody knows, for example, that AL Capone was a murderer, however all the investigations carried out by the Federal Government did not find any evidence to that extent and therefore he was convicted for tax evation. Rhodes never claimed in his letter to his friend that he was joking, why? He only did so to protect himself from criminal charges after he was investigated when his letter became public. We are not here to judge anyone, but the fact is that he made the claims of his acts and that the letter which he wrote (no one forced him to) speaks for itself. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It unfortunately does not. I too believe Rhoads probably did what he claimed, but we can't prove it. Andrevan@ 12:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have the following additional sources that I will post scans of when I get home:

• “The sensational case of a North American physician who says he has assassinated 8 Porto Ricans and Inject cancer germs into many more. [trans.]” El Imparcial, January 26, 1932.
• “Charge Race Extermination Plot,” Porto Rico Progress, February 4, 1932

Andrevan@ 18:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC) There is extensive source material explaining how acceptable racist, nationalist, and radically eugenic views were, as held by individuals such as Theodore Roosevelt, John D. Rockefeller, and many other respected men and scientists throughout history. I certainly don't condone or excuse them. I happen to subscribe to the viewpoint that Rhoads transplanted cancer into Puerto Ricans and it was covered up. But I do not have proof of this. The official records from 1931 state he was there studying hookworm-induced anemia and tropical sprue and do not provide evidence of cancer experiments or intentional killing. Here are some scans, I can't find Imparcial right now: Full text of Rhoads letter Porto Rico Progress Porto Rico Progress article Conclusions reached in the Rhoads investigation Andrevan@ 05:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources do not support your views, so you need to be careful about taking your own view too far. I agree that his comments were offensive, but doubt they were evidence of murder.Parkwells (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm saying that we need to be even-handed about it, even though it's pretty obvious from my research that there was a cover-up here. I've maintained from the beginning that we should follow the sources closely. Andrevan@ 17:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

New edits and information.

I have re-arranged the sections in the article, added an infobox and included more background information about the man. I did not include anything new about the supposed controversy that surrounds him, just biographical info to sketch out more of who he was.Royal Scottish (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Royal Scottish

Portraits

There are some pictures of Rhoads at " the NIH National Library of Medicine. I suspect these are works of the US Army and therefore public domain but I can't confirm that. Andrevan@ 22:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Question attacks

Editors need to think about who is saying what, and for what purpose. Aponte-Vasquez raised issues in 1982, and appears to have made a career out of this. Even after the official investigation in 2002, he could not interest a publisher in his book, and had to self-publish. Now he continues his campaign on his blog. Neither of those are reliable sources, per Wikipedia. As offensive as Rhoads comments were, they were in a private letter not intended for public consumption. No one documented that he treated patients poorly or abused them verbally, for instance. No one found any evidence that he had committed medical malpractice of any sort. This article needs to present more information to cover his substantial achievements after this period in Puerto Rico. Right now it has far too much content devoted to this controversy based on one private letter taken and copied by a third party. His scientific work was also part of his life.Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is not a matter of some isolated Wikipedia editors taking unilateral action, with respect to "one private letter taken and copied by a third party." The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) is the world's oldest and largest professional association for advancing cancer research. The organization has more than 33,000 members in 97 countries. The AACR, not just a few Wikipedia editors, found this "one private letter" to be so offensive, that they removed Rhoads' name from an award. The letter, therefore, was a defining aspect of his career. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Moreover, Rhoads' illustrious history in Puerto Rico extended beyond "one private letter." On another occasion he wrote that, rather than treating disease in the local population, he enjoyed causing it: "The exciting experiment now is the attempt to cause experimental sprue in humans. If they don’t develop something they certainly have the constitutions of oxen." If any editor feels that this is a necessary part of the medical experimental process, they can certainly volunteer themselves for it.

Puerto Ricans were not allowed that - the luxury of choice. They were experimented upon by Dr. Rhoads, without their knowledge or consent. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no sourced documentation in the article that Rhoads experimented without patient consent, in the case of tropical sprue. Researchers still do not understand what causes it.Parkwells (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is still supposed to represent the whole story. Eric Rosenthal wrote in Oncology Times, "The complicated legacy of Cornelius “Dusty” Rhoads, who died in 1959, should not cause society to promote nor deny his existence but should provide a perspective that neither condones what he wrote or thought—or the whitewashing of the incident by institutions and media of the 1930s—but that does give him due appropriate credit for his accomplishments as well as acknowledgement of his faults and sins." Parkwells (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the article has always reflected the truth of the situation: Rhodes' "confession" and subsequent backpedaling, the Rockefeller whitewashing campaign, the un-reviewed Cidra records and the 2nd redacted letter. We haven't claimed that Rhodes got away with murder, but the facts of the situation do call it to mind. Andrevan@ 17:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The facts of the situation do not suggest that to everyone - the facts are that the Puerto Rican Attorney General and top medical officials of Puerto Rico found no evidence of wrongdoing or of the purported "crimes" noted in the letter, nor did the 2002 investigation. Just because a political appointee, the governor, described Rhoads letter as a "confession" does not mean that it literally is.Parkwells (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't see the Rhoads narrative as a possible example of Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States, then you don't know much about the Rockefeller Foundation. If new evidence ever came to light in the Rhoads case that proved he had injected cancer cells into patients, it would certainly be in company. Andrevan@ 22:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You still have to stick to the sources in this particular case; the Puerto Rican AG and top doctors did not find evidence of crimes or mistreatment of patients by Rhoads and/or the Rockefeller Foundation. Yes, I'm well aware of other abuses.Parkwells (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we're more or less on the same page about it. Andrevan@ 14:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• No matter how much AGF I try to apply here, I find it difficult to understand Parkwells' position without failing to perceive some sort of personal agenda as his statements above illustrate:

• "Aponte-Vasquez raised issues in 1982, and appears to have made a career out of this", illustrates Parkwell's demeanor towards the side that he has been attempting to downplay. This leads to conflicts with WP:NPOV.

He's been writing about this issue over a 30-year span; the expression "made a career out of it" is shorthand. I didn't put it in the article.Parkwells (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "He [Aponte-Vasquez] could not interest a publisher in his book, and had to self-publish" - How does Parkwells know this? Did Parkwells read this in some biography about Aponte-Vazquez? Since Parkwells presents no proof of this, his claim becomes nothing else than speculation dressed as fact. This is not only a poor editorial trait but also a classical violation of WP:SYN.

Other editors have speculated far more than that on this page without your attacking them; again, this was discussion on this page. But, if someone can get a publisher, they generally would. I didn't violate any policy by discussing it on this Talk page.Parkwells (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Right now it has far too much content devoted to this controversy based on one private letter taken and copied by a third party." No, there isn't too much content devoted to the "private letter" because the letter was the vehicle that initiated the controversy to begin with. The letter tarnished his career and any attempt to remove the "private letter" is an attempt to re-write history, a violation of WP:OR.

You overstate; I did not suggest removing the private letter.Parkwells (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "There is no sourced documentation in the article that Rhoads experimented without patient consent, in the case of tropical sprue" - This article is not about sprue, it is about Rhoads. Did Rhoads experiment with patients without their consent? If so, add the citation and put it in.

Nelsondenis complained above that Rhoads experimented without patient consent and did not provide a cite; this is not my issue.Parkwells (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "...the facts are that the Puerto Rican Attorney General..." Parkwells has already been reminded HERE to stop introducing the nationality of the insular Attorney General in place at the time into this article. Instead of Puerto Rican Attorney General, all that needs to be pointed out is the position of the office "Puerto Rico's Attorney General". Yet Parkwells is either forgetful or relentless because as it is shown HERE he cotinues to bring up the fact that the AG was a Puerto Rican when nationality does not matter, juridical position does.

See my comments below - it seemed useful to note that Americans were not the only people involved; this came from the NY Times cite. You don't agree, but that is just your opinion.Parkwells (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "the Puerto Rican AG and top doctors did not find evidence of crimes or mistreatment of patients by Rhoads and/or the Rockefeller Foundation." - The fact that no evidence was found doesn't mean Rhoads didn't do it; it simply means that no evidence was found, period. As such, the matter is inconclusive, period.
• "As offensive as Rhoads comments were, they were in a private letter not intended for public consumption." Excuse me...how does that justify his action? It doesn't.
• "The facts are that the Puerto Rican Attorney General and top medical officials of Puerto Rico found no evidence of wrongdoing or of the purported 'crimes' noted in the letter, nor did the 2002 investigation." - What occured in 2002 cannot outright be called an investigation: The Puerto Rican government did not have the funds needed to lift the remains of the dozen or so Puerto Ricans that had died under Rhoads's care to perform DNA testing on them. As such the investigation was Inconclusive and that's what needs to be presented.
• "Just because a political appointee, the governor, described Rhoads letter as a 'confession' does not mean that it literally is." - Parkwells is adding his own personal touch to downgrade the confession that got Rhoads in trouble. Another illustration of WP:OR.
• "This article needs to present more information to cover his substantial achievements after this period in Puerto Rico...His scientific work was also part of his life." - Of course his scientific achievements were also part of his life. Per WP:BOLD, go ahead and add more info on his scientific achievement. But we don't glorify his scientific achievements by downplaying the disparaging letter he wrote.
• "This article is still supposed to represent the whole story." - This summarizes the fundamental problem here. Parkwells seems to be thinking that he can present "the whole story" by taking away from the details of the controversy. That's just isn't the way we operate at Wikipedia.

Again, editors' agendas don't lead anywhere productive. What needs to be done is to note with citations that his "private letter" got Rhoads in trouble, tarnished his career, dishonored his name from the AACR prize, and created a controversy that hasn't died to this day. Parkwells needs to start talking with citations, stop removing well-sourced material, and discontinue his practice of glorifing Rhoads' scientific achievements at the expense of his PROVEN dark personal side.

Mercy11 (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comments suggest you have an agenda of your own, as you have attacked me on so many levels it is difficult to respond. I'm not trying to glorify Rhoads, but this is a biography article, not an article only on the controversy, so it should treat his full life. In terms of WP practices, you put comments in your editorial summary without bringing them here before now, but berated me for doing the same thing on another topic. And the continual personal attacks and judgment about what and why I've made comments is not useful. It's good to know there are many other articles to work on.Parkwells (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears that every editor but me can express an opinion on this page and not be attacked for it. But let's take just one group of facts I added with a cite: The reason I identified the Puerto Rican nationals involved with the Puerto Rican government investigation in 1932, with a cite by the NY Times who identified them by name, was that much has been made here of American abuses and faults. Those definitely exist. But, as it was such a hot issue (and still is), it seemed pertinent to note that not only Americans were involved in investigations of Rhoads, and also, that Campos was not the only Puerto Rican participant in the entire affair. His comments appeared to have been taken seriously by the government, and investigated by people who appear to have been top-ranking Puerto Ricans. I thought making this clear by identifying the people was a way to show how seriously it was taken. It's not obvious to me if other editors agree with you about not identifying those people in that way, as so many issues have been swirling around here. But, if editors want to write about Rhoads and US whitewashing and suspicions about Rockefeller Foundation misdeeds (editors have said on this page they believe Rhoads did kill patients), wouldn't you want readers to know what Puerto Rican nationals did in this case? The acting governor was not born in Puerto Rico, so readers might not otherwise know the AG was a national, or that Puerto Rican doctors were involved in the investigation.Parkwells (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it came out to you as an attack on you, it was an attack on how those comments would violate policy. I broke it apart to try make heads-and-tails of what have been a significant number of edits by you with barely enough chance for other editors to react. Please don't intertwine your comments in between mine - not within procedure per WP:Talk page guidelines. You need to repeat my stuff and make your comments, as I have done for you. And, BTW, please revise you whitewashing link - it doesn't seem to be pointing to what the editor may have intended. Mercy11 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I put the whitewashing link back in, whoever removes it appears to be trying to whitewash the article. It was pointing to the right place before... Andrevan@ 23:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Mercy11, you still did not address the substantive issue of your objections to identifying that Puerto Rican citizens were the leads for the government investigation in 1932, but you made a big deal over my supposedly ignoring your edit summary on this in the Campos article (just did not see it). Andrevan discussed some possible issues on the Talk page here which helped me understand the political complexity of the time and since. But you are the one who appears to object. By the way, I did not suggest they were Nationalist party people, but meant "Puerto Rican nationals" or native born, added for the reasons noted above.Parkwells (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think most of the things Mercy says are valid, but I also think Parkwells wasn't suggesting removing the letter or twisting this, so an attempt to characterize Parkwells as disagreeing with Mercy's points is sort of a straw man. We clearly all want the scandal to be discussed in depth here as appropriate. I do think it's fair to acknowledge that the doctors who reviewed the Presby records were both Puerto Rican. I do think rather than calling them simply nameless Puerto Rican nationals, we could identify their names and affiliations in detail. Andrevan@ 16:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't be thinking this and thinking that. "Thinking" in that fashion is tantamount to asumming; namely, WP:RS. We should put in what are known as actual facts. I agree with adding actual names, title, and corporate affiliations as these uniquely identify the individuals as well as their qualifications and "side" they stand in the whole controversy issue. As for their nationality, I don't see why that would be important at this point. If their nationalities were important, "other sources whould had already said that". Mercy11 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Export of edit warring onto other pages

The reversion of sourced material and edit warring that is occuring on this page, has now been exported onto the Pedro Albizu Campos page. I placed a notice on the talk page of Pedro Albizu Campos and restored the original sourced material (over 1,400 bytes of information}. This really should stop. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that too much info was removed in the last series of edits. Andrevan@ 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is edit warring. Much of the discussion on this TAlk page has not referred to edits, but to discussion about the article. I added what I thought was relevant cited information to the Albizu Campos page: an extensive cited quote which had been in this article and did not appear to be controversial, as well as the result of the Puerto Rican investigation of his charges, to show they were taken seriously, including specific named Puerto Rican medical officials who had participated in the PR Attorney General's investigation, which was also new information, cited by the NY Times article. The reason I identified the nationality of the people was because much of the criticism about this case hd been directed at Americans. I thought it would be useful to show that Puerto Rican nationals ran their own investigation.Parkwells (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right that some of that belongs in that article and not this one, including the imperialism quote. Because I was doing the research on Rhoads and not Campos, I put most of it in here, but the move is reasonable. I do think that the Aponte Vazquez info is a valid POV which we should give its fair shot in the article as he is notable in the context of the story though not on his own. Andrevan@ 22:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)w

Personal attacks

Mercy11, you say, Perhaps it came out to you as an attack on you, it was an attack on how those comments would violate policy. It might be useful for you to re-examine your responses to me in the section under "Balance", beginning Oct. 20. As examples, you wrote:

You fail to set the stage for your first statement above; in the process, you appear to be not assuming good faith. - This seems accusatory in response to an attempt to discuss issues on the TAlk page.

Regardless, I find you are making statements here that, if I find them in the article without a citation, they will be immediately removed, per WP:OR: - You were attacking my effort to discuss issues on the Talk page; I had not added the comment to the article.

So what's your point (which you so brilliantly fail to state)? - Excellent approach for collaboration, building community and encouraging participation.

You failed to make your point. - More encouragement.

Rather than preaching to the rest of us, go ahead and make your edits. -I was not preaching but trying to address issues.

Frankly, that idea appears quite ridiculous. - Another positive statement to build collaboration.

Accusing an editor of failure three times in a first address to that editor does constitute a personal attack. I think editors should make an effort to keep comments addressed to the article. You have criticized me in numerous ways in both this and the Campos Talk page; let's both work on a more collaborative approach.Parkwells (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that anyone is engaging in outright incivility or personal attacks but I do think accusing each other of failing or sophistry is unproductive. Let's focus on the topic at hand, please, and not our fellow contributors, and that goes for everyone. Andrevan@ 16:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Balance

The article still needs to meet WP qualifications for balance in treatment and coverage. The 1930s scandal in Rhoads' lifetime did not overshadow all of the value of his work. Yes, the letter was racist and the man was racist, but it was written confidentially. The article should not be devoting extensive quotes to the re-examination in the 21st century of this matter, but summarize the facts and conclusions. Yes, people did see his letter, yes, it was deeply offensive, and in contemporary times, his name was removed from the prize. The extensive quote by Albizu I have moved to his article, as he was the one using it in his political campaign for national independence.Parkwells (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You fail to set the stage for your first statement above; in the process, you appear to be not assuming good faith. "Balance" is a relative word; someone's view of balance will almost always be someone else's view of POV.

Regardless, I find you are making statements here that, if I find them in the article without a citation, they will be immediately removed, per WP:OR:

• "The 1930s scandal in Rhoads' lifetime did not overshadow all of the value of his work." Do you have a cite for that? If so, put them both in the article.
• "Yes, the letter was racist and the man was racist, but it was written confidentially." So what's your point (which you so brilliantly fail to state)? Confidentiality doesn't justfy the man's (any man's) actions: most murders -and from there down thru every other evil action- are committed "confidentially". You failed to make your point.
• "The article should not be devoting extensive quotes to the re-examination in the 21st century of this matter, but summarize the facts and conclusions." - That depends on your definition of "extensive" and "summary". Rather than preaching to the rest of us, go ahead and make your edits: you will know when others disagree. But I will proffer a tiny piece of advise that just about every long-time editor here has found beneficial: "When making multiple changes to an article that has been previously edited by many editors over long periods of time, it is always wiser to first bring the prospective large changes to the article's talk page for disclosure, review, examination, and feedback.". WP:BOLD notwithstanding, the previous advise gets editors around here a lot farther in their goals - and with a lot less aggravation too.
• And, to be more precise, what's wrong with a "21st century" re-examination of this matter, unless -of course- you are pushing the idea that today we have less knowledge than before? Frankly, that idea appears quite ridiculous.

I would suggest that you backup you edits with WP:RS and that you live by what you preach: balance. Wikipedia is a comunity and acting in isolation and failing to involve the community usually results in edit warring andWP:BLOCKING. Mercy11 (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As a longtime editor myself, I would recommend you stick to the sources. You seem to have concluded on the basis of the letter that he committed murder. No investigations, as cited by several RS in the article, support that conclusion. Have added cites from New York Times in 1932, noting the investigation was by the Puerto Rican Attorney General, with medical review by doctors representing the Puerto Rico Medical Association and the Commissioner of Health. They said there was no evidence of mistreatment. My point above was to consider the sources. And yes, I do think Wikipedia demands that the rest of Rhoads' work deserves coverage in an article that is a biography of him, and not simply coverage of the controversy. Parkwells (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we do cover his life and accomplishments fairly well. But the thing that really makes this man notable versus the hundreds of unsung heroes and villains of medicine, many of whom have awards and endowments named for them but no articles, was the scandal and controversy. We should not whitewash the story here, and the 21st century discovery deserves fair coverage. The article cannot present the idea that he actually injected cancer cells since there is no evidence of this, but the facts are that the man has a history of racism and questionable medical ethics, there was certainly whitewashing of the story at the time, and there are still records missing in the case. These facts should all be presented, and the readers can make their own conclusions. Andrevan@ 17:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree on certain aspects of his notability, but serving as director of Memorial Hospital and Sloan-Kettering in their developmental years during a major drive on cancer research is considered a big deal in some circles. Also, it is not clear that he has a "history of questionable medical ethics" - that's a big statement that needs a source - what exactly is being referred to?Parkwells (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, trying to induce sprue in your patients rather than curing it where found is questionably ethical medically. Andrevan@ 16:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Similes and metaphors

Apparently Lederer criticized Rhoads for using the phrase: "constitution of oxen". This seems absurd, as there have long been metaphors and similes in most cultures based on characteristics of animals. I always understood this particular one to be positive, implying strength - "constitution of an ox." Others are "Heart of a lion." "Speed of a gazelle/horse/antelope."Parkwells (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• We are all quite cognizant of the use of metaphor and simile. We are also aware that an ox weighs up to 3,000 lbs., a weight 15 to 20 times higher than that of a human being. It is not "positive" to inject people with bacteria or disease, at levels 15 to 20 times over human limits, without their knowledge or consent.Nelsondenis248 (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Slow down - perhaps it is time to return to the article, rather than discussions that are not covered or documented at all in the article. Noting he used the phrase "constitution of an oxen" does not mean he administered anything at levels related to the weight of an oxen. There is no RS or content in the article that such an experiment was done. The Puerto Rican investigation by its own top-ranking medical personnel found no evidence of mistreatment of patients by Rhoads and the Rockefeller Project.Parkwells (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue with the oxen phrase was that he was trying to experimentally induce the conditions in his patients rather than cure them when those conditions were already present. The first part of the oxen sentence was something like if they don't develop the diseases, then they surely must have the constitutions of oxen, meaning if they don't get sick they must be hardy like an ox. Andrevan@ 17:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, but then you seemed to interpret it to mean, since an ox weighs many more times than a human, he gave some high dosage of some material. That is not sourced. It is also not clear that the patients were not voluntarily participating in this. There is no RS for that statement.Parkwells (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your sophistry is rather tiresome, Parkwells. If you think people will "volunteer" to have themselves injected with levels of disease that will sicken an ox, then it is manifestly impossible to reason with you. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attack. You still have not provided sourced documentation of Rhoads experimenting in the way you describe. The Puerto Rican medical investigation did not find grounds for any charges of medical misconduct against him or the Rockefeller Project. Parkwells (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not called the Project, it has several names, but that isn't one of them. Now, I'm not saying I agree with Nelsondenis. Rhoads' patients were sick - poor jibaros who went to him voluntarily to be helped. They probably did not realize he was trying to induce sprue. Rhoads was working at a hospital; he also did work "in the field" with volunteers. His patients in the hospital were certainly there voluntarily as they were sick, usually with hookworm, sprue, anemia, etc. The work "in the field" was considered to be educational and I think it consisted of giving patients iron pills and things like that, but again, there's no evidence it was involuntary. Andrevan@ 22:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC) (FWIW on the Rockefeller Institute, which was the place in NY, and the entity that Rhoads worked for Puerto Rico, it was called the Rockefeller Foundation at the time, and it had a unit known as the International Health Board, I think the Board part changed around from Committee to a few other things. One day I will read more about it - the starting point recommended to me was Farley, John, <To Cast Out Disease>, a history of the International Health Commission/Board/Division Andrevan@ 22:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC))

Unindent, the main point is, Nelsondenis is misinterpreting the quote to mean that the dose would be high, what it actually means is that he was /trying to make them sick/ and if they /didn't get sick/, they must be /super strong/ like an ox. Nonetheless - this is unethical! Andrevan@ 22:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Aponte-Vasquez info

(I broke this up because we had changed the topic.)

We already address Aponte-Vasquez' complaint in the content of this article, including what Starr characterizes as his "most prominent finding" - what Beverley wrote about a purportedly suppressed second letter (very indirect evidence.) But, although Aponte-Vasquez raised his issues during a period (in mainland US at least) of re-examination of medical experimentation and other issues, the Puerto Rico Dept. of Justice did not think it worth it to re-open the case. I don't think we have to add both of A-V's quotes just because he said them, especially as his accusation of "perpetrator" is not supported by the conclusions of the two investigations in 1932 nor the one in 2002. So he thought there was "an old boys' network" - what does that mean, exactly? did he think that included the 1932 Attorney General of Puerto Rico and two ranking doctors representing Puerto Rican medical institutions who conducted a separate investigation that had cleared Rhoads and the Rockefeller Foundation? Didn't they have an interest in protecting Puerto Ricans? And if they had a conspiracy with the Americans and did not protect the Puerto Ricans, then it is larger than an American problem, or US whitewashing, or a Rhoads scandal. But that is speculation, as it is not addressed in the sources. Editors' content in the article and on the Talk page has not addressed that aspect, but editors seem free to speculate at length about the worst possibilities for Rhoads and the American establishment. But if editors go that far, then speculation about conspiracy has to address the potential responsibility of Puerto Rican officials and medical community.Parkwells (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• The PR DoJ decided not to look into the Rhoads matter for lack of funding and not, as you are stating, because it though it wasn't worth it. That's not to say he was guilty or not; but it does show how we can state stuff that is just not compliant with WP:OR Mercy11 (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I understand what you're asking, and you're right that there is no conclusive evidence of a cover-up; I'm not saying we should treat Aponte-Vazquez's conspiracism as gospel. However, you have to realize that in the context of Puerto Rican nationalism, not all Puerto Ricans were in favor of the anti-American position that Albizu Campos took up in the aftermath of the scandal. This position actually predates the Rhoads incident and there was significant factionalism within the Puerto Rican political class. So Aponte-Vazquez's claim that the Puerto Rican doctors were acting against Puerto Rican interest is not incoherent because in his mind, the true interest of Puerto Rico was pro-independence, while not all Puerto Ricans agreed with this (or even a majority). Anyway, maybe instead of quoting the Aponte-Vazquez "old boys" quote, we can simply say that Rhoads has become a target for conspiracy theories. I think Lederer put it well that if Rhoads' cancer cell transplantation story is simply a perverse joke or fantasy, his later career in cancer research is a strange coincidence - or shows the particular power that fantasy had for him. The cancer piece is also the portion that was bowdlerized in the Rockefeller-approved U.S. media version of the story. Andrevan@ 14:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Do you have a citation that says "Rhoads has become a target for conspiracy theories"? If yes, the statement goes in, if not, then the statement does not go, per WP:SYN. This is how a lot of well-meaning editors get in trouble here at Wikipedia. Mercy11 (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think it would not be accurate to say Rhoads is a target of conspiracy theorists without a quote. It wasn't clear to me what Aponte-Vasquez thought, that is, if he thought the Puerto Rican doctors were part of the "old boys network," or if he was referring only to the US mainland doctors and establishment. Is there a better quote to clarify that issue? If he thought the ob network included Puerto Rican nationals, it would be useful to have a quote that was clear about that. Several comments above on this TAlk page seem to criticize only the Americans: their whitewashing, Rhoads' racism, etc. What you said about the factionalism of the political class and Aponte-Vasquez' comments in relation to that is very interesting, but it is a lot of complexity to convey about the context of his comments (the state of Puerto Rican nationalism before and after the scandal) to try to work into an article that is a biography of Rhoads. (Sounds as if that political context would be really good material for an article just about the scandal itself and politics at the time in Puerto Rico!)

Secondly, it may be good to be careful about adopting Lederer's interpretation of the direction of Rhoads' career. People are shaped by their work - Rhoads was already with the Rockefeller Institute, when the Foundation was planning a new building for Memorial Hospital in the 1930s, which was where he ended going; that's where his opportunity was. Also, according to the WP article, his boss Flexner did work on retinblastoma, a type of cancer, and the Institute was looking at basic cell processes. Cancer formation in cells was part of that. When Rhoads went to Memorial, which was devoted to cancer, he was shaped by his new environment as well as shaping it. A major influence at the time was probably his seeing that a lot of money was going into cancer research: outward evidence was the new building for Memorial in the 1930s, and the founding of Sloan-Kettering in 1945, with the construction of a big new building for its research. Researchers want to be where the money is to get funding for their work. When you look at even the brief WP article on Memorial/Sloan-Kettering, people were using experiences from the mobilization of WWII to envision good results if they "mobilized" as much against cancer, and were putting big money into it in New York. That's all compelling enough not to have to resort to Lederer's "fantasy" or "coincidence."Parkwells (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well stated Parkwells. This is the level of constraint we need here. Well said. No citation, no entry. Mercy11 (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's true - Lederer doesn't actually argue that Rhoads killed anyone, she entertains the idea that it was a joke. It's certainly plausible that Rhoads wrote the cancer "joke" in 1932 while he was still doing anemia/sprue work based on nothing other than his own random imaginings. The part that makes it fishy is that Rockefeller covered it up so thoroughly - there was even a claim by someone that cancer transplantation was impossible and never happened. Of course it did, someone put a cancer transplant into a chicken or something, I'll see if I can find that.Andrevan@ 23:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Lederer's longer book survey of scientific experimentation before WWII provides some context for this era (I've sampled it through Googlebooks). She notes that the medical/science profession was enjoying high status at this time. People were concerned about some of the experimentation issues, but actions tended to be local - hospital guidelines, for instance, as hospitals became places for teaching, clinical research, in addition to patient treatment. She says people could see the important advances in infectious disease treatments/cures/vaccines, etc., which made a difference for so many.Parkwells (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Cidra study

(Added break because of long texts.Parkwells (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC))

Here is my analysis of the Cidra study, which is original research and should not appear in the article, but makes me feel there was a cover-up here: Aside from the censored second letter, the trial comprehensively examined all the records of patients admitted to the Presbyterian Hospital, and all of the official Rockefeller Foundation records. However, Rhoads did not explicitly mention the hospital in his letter, and he had performed one research study outside of the hospital which the investigation did not examine. Earlier in 1931, Castle approached Payne about funding a parallel research project he wished to undertake in conjunction with Dr. Donald H. Cook of the Department of Chemistry of the University of Puerto Rico’s School of Tropical Medicine, and a Puerto Rican social worker, Celia Núñez. The research would take place “in the field,” primarily at Núñez’ home, in Cidra. 50 As mentioned earlier, Rhoads was at a social worker’s house in Cidra when he “made a disturbance” about his car: this was Núñez, with whom Rhoads had a working friendship. 51 Although at first Payne was enthusiastic about the idea, he decided to reject funding the Cidra study. Writing to Dr. Howard, Payne explained he had rejected Castle’s request for funding for a number of reasons: it was not approved by the Puerto Rican commissioner of education, the supervision would have been inadequate, facilities were not available for adequate 50 51 measurements, there was not a proper definition of the relationship to the other institution under which the studies were started (the University), and he considered it “premature.” 52 Castle considered his arguments invalid and incomprehensible, and proceeded anyway, using Harvard money to fund the research and keeping Núñez on a volunteer basis, later returning to ask for Rockefeller funding once again. 53 “In spite of my disapproval and without my knowledge, Dr. Castle entered upon the experiment...,” Payne wrote to Howard, “He argues that the support should now come from the Rockefeller Foundation, since it would be unethical [otherwise].... In my opinion, the unethical act was performed when he began the work.” 54 It is not clear exactly what Castle or Payne thought would be unethical about the source of funding, though this could also be a code word for “too expensive,” not experimentation on humans. Reviewing the memorandum containing the proposal for the Cidra study reveals nothing unusual, except how closely it resembles the other anemia studies that were performed back at the hospital. 55 Aside from the inclusion of the outside social worker, the study is very similar to many others conducted by the Foundation in Puerto Rico, except not performed on hospital patients. 56 Why, then, did Payne insist so strongly that it was unethical? “It will be seen that the most important reason for avoiding the Cidra experiment were those affecting external relations and it is in this respect that the danger is still present,” he explained to Howard cryptically later in February. 57 Perhaps Howard referred obliquely to the Rhoads affair. Initial communications from Payne to Howard arguing repeatedly against funding the Cidra study begin in early February, as the trial of Rhoads was still in progress, so this is one possible explanation for Payne’s “still- present danger” comment. That comment also references “external relations,” and certainly the Rhoads trial was the largest issue of public relations occupying everyone at the time; it is difficult to imagine that another study could attract attention in 1932 simply for methodological details like the ones offered by Payne. 58 The only explicit link between the Rhoads affair and the Cidra study was that Rhoads had been visiting Núñez, ostensibly for a social engagement, when he “made a disturbance.” 59 This event was cited as the “moment of anger” that drove Rhoads to write his letter. Although on paper, the Cidra study appears to have been isolated from the Rhoads scandal, “There are a few things about this affair which cannot be put into correspondence,” Payne wrote. 60 Núñez also appears to have withheld some kind of information, at least according to the police officer who took her statement. “Miss. Núñez can give a more ample statement than the present one; she was willing to inform something else, but it seems that somebody insinuated to her that she abstain from extending herself with other details she knows pertaining to the doctor of reference.” 61 Of course, these missing details could be almost anything, and are more likely to be further racism than proof of cancer experiments. The timing of a simple funding dispute could be also explained by Castle’s pending departure from Puerto Rico, and a desire to resolve a loose end and move on. If the cancer portion of the letter was purely a fantasy, it does make Rhoads’ subsequent career in cancer a strange string of coincidences, or at least reveals the deep significance that particular fantasy had for him. “Ferdie,” the addressee of the first letter, was identified as Fred W. Stewart, another Rockefeller alumnus and researcher at the New York Memorial Sloan- Kettering Hospital, an institution which focuses on cancer. 62 Rhoads would join Stewart at Sloan-Kettering and became its director in 1945. Andrevan@ 00:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC) (Have scans for the cites if anyone is curious)

The Rhoads article already mentions Fred Stewart as a colleague from one of Rhoads' first papers on a tuberculin study. John D Rockefeller donated land in 1936 as the site for the new Memorial Hospital (and Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases), so by 1932 or 33, that new building was probably already being talked about, as big projects are in development for a while. It would have been clear that a lot of money was going into cancer research, which would have been an opportunity for Rhoads and others.Parkwells (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your material above is really interesting but, as you said, you can't use it here. (Maybe you should write an article for a history journal on this.) In addition, without knowing the political/administrative set-up of the medical research and funding (approval of the Puerto Rican Commissioner of Education is referred to, so that suggests another line of political involvement), it is impossible to understand some of the references. Yes, they could simply have been referring to the Rhoads' scandal, and they would have wanted to keep major donors happy. There might also have been US political pressures on something related to Congress. Too hard to say without more info. The more you learn, the more complexity. You have some great material. Parkwells (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right, I can't use this material. If you are interested in this check out of some Aponte-Vazquez's blog posts and stuff, I have even seem him post scans of some of the original documents that I have cross-checked with archival sources to verify they are legit (though, again, not RS). While he is definitely off the deep end on thinking Rhoads was running around killing children for no good reason, and has a flair for the dramatic in describing the case which hurts his argument IMO, his anger at the unwillingness of the Puerto Rican establishment to reopen the investigation is somewhat justified based on the material that I've found, which is why I like that quote of his that says they didn't exhume the bodies. I don't think of "the bodies" as the idea that Rhoads was a murderer, but that he probably performed unethical experiments in Cidra that haven't actually been reviewed. Whether those experiments actually involved fatalities or what seems more likely if they were somehow cancer-related, the Cidra study is a loose end that hasn't been investigated by anyone. It's also strange that Rhoads' career between Puerto Rico and World War II is kind of a black box; it's known that he was involved in the radiation experiments which were basically classified until 1994 I think. P.S. if you know any history journals that would be interested in amateur work by a software engineer (actually, I have a B.A. in History from CMU, but I don't practice :)), I would love to.Andrevan@ 16:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added a few things from other sources in this period- in the mid-1930s, Rhoads was made head of a special section at the Rockefeller Institute that continued to do research on anemia and tropical sprue and published on this topic. When he went to Memorial Hospital in 1940, he was then acting as an administrator for the entire operation relatively soon after its move to a new building: a large operation that was both providing patient treatment and doing clinical and lab research. That would keep anyone busy - new issues of personnel, budget, staffing, fundraising, etc.Parkwells (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are the main points we need to hit in the lead section

Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, TIME, Rockefeller Institute, anemia, leukemia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Army, chemical weapons, chemotherapy, mustard gas, Pedro Albizu Campos, Puerto Rican nationalism, whitewashing, AACR, racism. Note I added back in nationalism and whitewashing. Two big ones for the big idea picture of the Rhoads story. Andrevan@ 22:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen any documentation that there was a trial related to the controversy, but there was an investigation, and testimony taken, as well as records reviewed. If the Lead is to use "trial," it has to be cited, and that also has to be part of the content. "Trial" is not part of anything I've read and it has not been part of this article before. Parkwells (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

let me check, I think Lederer probably talks about it. Andrevan@ 13:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

you're right, Lederer just calls it an investigation. I'm not sure it actually did go to trial, perhaps we should simply reference that testimony was taken. Andrevan@ 13:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

According to my notes, it did go to trial. However I don't know that any of the sources picked up on this. I think it was in a letter written by George C. Payne (doctor) who worked with Rhoads. Andrevan@ 23:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that from your notes from archives. Sounds as if you had a really interesting time researching this.Parkwells (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Rhoads' work on tropical sprue

Rereading Lederer's article reveals a fuller account of Rhoads' efforts to induce experimental sprue during his research. At this time, researchers suspected that diet was implicated in causing the condition. They also had recently developed treatment, namely, liver extract. I added that liver extract had been found, and also the number of subjects Castle and Rhoads started working with.

There was speculation on this page that Rhoads had injected bacteria in subjects to try to induce this disease. That is not the case - he worked with diet, which was reversible, and he had the means to treat the disease if it developed. For that reason, I have added before this section that doctors knew that liver extract could be given to treat the disease. In addition, I propose the paragraph on this subject to read:

<<Historian and ethicist Susan E. Lederer notes that Rhoads was enthusiastic about his research in the early months. In September 1931 he wrote to his boss Flexner that he was working with some subjects to see if he could induce experimental tropical sprue by limiting their nutrition to a “characteristic native diet,” consisting of very low protein (30 grams a day) and “almost no vitamins.” He wrote to Flexner, “If they don’t develop something they certainly have the constitutions of oxen." If his subjects developed the disease, he could treat it with liver extract.>>

This provides a fuller account of what was going on; there was no injecting of subjects with bacteria, as was previously suggested on this page (and never sourced.)Parkwells (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is another issue, as there is material quoted in this section of the article that does not appear in the Lederer article. An editor may have seen a fuller version of Rhoads' letter somewhere else, but it can't be used or quoted without a secondary source. Here is the material: [Rhoads described] <<this research as “the production of the experimental disease in animals.” For example, he wrote: "The exciting experiment now is the attempt to cause experimental sprue in humans.">> These two quotes do not appear in the Lederer article.Parkwells (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This appears in the Flexner-Rhoads correspondence but if it doesn't appear anywhere else, we can't use the primary source reference. Andrevan@ 22:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thought that might be the case. We would need to take those two quotes out. But, I do think it gives needed perspective to understanding what the project was about to provide more background for insight into the fact that Castle/Rhoads and others thought that diet was implicated in the disorder, which resulted in anemia; and tried to observe what took place on the restricted diet, and had a treatment for the disorder if he did induce it. Parkwells (talk) 09:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Add material on study

Since there has been so much attention to this study, I think it would be useful to better describe what Castle and Rhoads were doing in their study, and the condition of patients they saw. The Lederer article has facts: "The commission ultimately studied 257 subjects with severe anemia; 164 of these “patients” were hospitalized at the foundation’s expense. Among the 257 anemia sufferers, 100 suffered from tropical sprue." There is more, but this shows how much sprue affected development of anemia. Lederer continues: "The researchers performed a series of tests on 92 sprue subjects, ranging in age from 10 to 80. Seeking to establish the cause of sprue, the investigators conducted a detailed dietary history of each individual. Although they found that that “the monotony of the fare of the Puerto Rican peasants” was useful for limiting the dietary possibilities, they reached no conclusions about the cause of the disorder."(Castel et al.656) Parkwells (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Add -Rhoads made public apology

From testimony - A couple of days after learning that his letter had been circulated, Rhoads publicly apologized to all the staff and doctors of the Anemia Commission. This is according to Lederer. I think that his public apology should be noted in the article. The next month, in December, he returned to New York.Parkwells (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Add more dates

Some more dates from Lederer would be useful. Rhoads left in December to return to NY. Baldoni resigned in late December and gave the letter to Albizu in January 1932 - Albizu publicized it and that was when the scandal broke. I think a few more of these steps could be included, or at least summarized.Parkwells (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted Rhoads' public apology in Nov and return to NY in Dec; Baldoni's giving letter to Albizu in Jan. 1932.Parkwells (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Placement of 1950 assassination attempt of Truman

This was included at the end of the "Scandal" section: In 1950, however, when Puerto Rican pro-independence activists Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola tried to assassinate President Truman, one of them cited Rhoads' letter as motivation for becoming a militant.

Andrevan has explained to me more about the symbolic power of this story as a recurring symbol in Puerto Rican life. I think that point could be more powerfully made if we were to put this section in the "Postwar years" part of Rhoads life in the appropriate timeframe, to show that the scandal and mistrust generated by it continued to influence relations between Puerto Rican and the US, because of its power in Puerto Rico. Went back to Lederer to learn that Collazo was the one who claimed the 1932 incident as influential (He heard Albizu speak about Rhoads), so have added that to both his article and also the one on the Truman assassination attempt, to show the long influence from the Rhoads scandal. Parkwells (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Published results

Rhoads published on the successful use of liver extract as therapy for tropical sprue, and this was recognized in 1936 as contributing to effective treatment of the disorder - added this.Parkwells (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Mercy11 said the whitewashing campaign (I added US) was to "glorify his name", referring to Rhoads. He noted in his edit summary: removed the ambiguity - the statement did not make clear which side was doing the whitewashing - it was by TIME and NYT editors paid with hard cash for the sole purpose of making Rhoads look good. Eric Rosenthal's article,The Rhoads Not Given: The Tainting of the Cornelius P. Rhoads Memorial Award. Rosenthal, Eric T. Oncology Times. 10 September 2003. Volume 25. Issue 17. pp. 19-20] which was the source for the cite, says nothing about "glorifying" Rhoads, nor about TIME and NYT editors being paid to make him look good.Parkwells (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't picky about the wording; was just seeking to remove potential confusion. Good choice of words. Mercy11 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Parkwells (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Public relations on clinical studies

Lederer's earlier book in 1997 was the first about concerns about human experimentation on humans from the late 19th c. to WWII. As it had a relevant portion related to the Rockefeller Institute in the early 1930s, I added the following to the section related to Ivy Lee's role and press monitoring by the Institute: and avoid problems with critics of human experimentation in the US. (During the early 1930s, there was a revival of the anti-vivisectionist movement in the US, which also was concerned about the use of vulnerable populations: children (especially orphans), prisoners, and soldiers, as subjects of experimentation. As Lederer observed, "some members of the medical community...monitored the popular and medical press." Francis Peyton Roux of the Rockefeller Institute was editor of the Journal of Experimental Medicine. Although it accepted few articles on clinical research, he was careful about their wording in an effort to avoid criticism by the anti-vivisectionists.) I think it provides context.Parkwells (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have the book but there's not much in there on Rhoads. Noguchi does appear. The idea of the anti-vivisectionists as a movement is still somewhat problematic to me; in the postwar period it seems to be mostly about animal rights, so maybe the backlash against eugenics through World War II made the movement unnecessary? Or do scientists and administrators of the interwar period consider the non-white peoples of the colonies to actually be animals, a la the justification for slavery and Rhoads' "experimental 'animals'"? Noguchi is definitely the parallel case to look at, as they both worked for Flexner at Rockefeller. I think Noguchi also did work abroad in South America. There are files at the Rockefeller Archive Center for a variety of tropical locales. Andrevan@ 23:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

My impression from Lederer and another writer was that the animal groups extended their interest from animals to vulnerable human populations, including children, orphans, poor, patients, prisoners, soldiers, etc. - I think along the lines of, if we let them experiment on animals, next they'll experiment on human beings. The ASPCA was founded before the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; it was just the way it developed in response to issues of the time. The animal welfare focus was also related to conditions at the time, and as medical experimentation began to expand later in the century, they began to look at what science was doing with humans.Parkwells (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Please look at Hideyo Noguchi

Andrevan pointed out Noguchi to me, and I've come across him in other reading. He was a researcher who was criticized for his use of orphans in a 1911 clinical study, but was acquitted of any charges. It may be worthwhile to follow that article in terms of structure, as it has an overview of the life and work together. In Rhoads case, we could mention of the letter and outcome of investigations, then have a later section devoted in more detail to that and the 2002 investigation. I think the biography article is getting quite unbalanced in terms of the amount of content devoted to the 1931-32 events compared to the rest of his life and work. In terms of other additions, I agree with Andrevan that the RS do have conclusions.Parkwells (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually think this article is better structurally. I would sooner see a deeper treatment of the scandal in the proper context and chronological order than burying it at the bottom as the Noguchi article does for some reason. Andrevan@ 23:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking much better

I have to say the article is looking much better. Andrevan@ 17:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Added content

I've added content on Albizu Campos' complaints about the US at the time of the Rhoads' letter, plus info on its being fully published in two other papers in Jan and Feb (have access to the full text, which might be worth putting in the article, since we've given so much space to it), and Beverley's assessment of Rhoads (as well as a historian noting this was Beverley's first crisis as acting governor. Beverley provoked outrage of his own later that year when his promotion of birth control was strongly objected to by Catholic groups in the US, per Truman Clark's book. So, added the following: <<Albizu Campos... saying that its governors in Puerto Rico encouraged labor emigration rather than improving employment, and birth control, which was offensive to many Catholics.

A photograph of the letter was published on January 27, 1932 in La Democracia, the Unionist newspaper of Barceló, with a translation in Spanish of the entire letter. On February 13, El Mundo published the entire letter, in both Spanish and English.

The Rhoads' letter created one of the first crises for James Beverley, newly appointed as the acting Governor of Puerto Rico. He said the letter was a "confession of murder" and "a libel against the people of Puerto Rico", and ordered an investigation, one of his first acts. Beverley said of Rhoads that "he was just a damned fool, ... a good doctor, but not very strong mentally on anything else.">>Parkwells (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you can find it, another quote in the vein of Beverley's was the official statement, something like "Rhoads was merely mentally ill or lacked scruples." Andrevan@ 13:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think putting the full text in the article is a great idea. Andrevan@ 17:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Have added the full text of the letter.Parkwells (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Re: Ewing

Mercy removed that Rhoads succeeded Ewing, who had written about cancer transplantation. This is 100% relevant. Andrevan@ 13:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Standing on a soapbox; provide actual reasoning. If the relevancy is beyond me, it most likely is also so to the average reader. Removed per WP:BURDEN. Mercy11 (talk)

I am very surprised you would say this and I question your motives here. We even list predecessors and successors on infoboxes. You are removing sourced information from the article. BURDEN says nothing about this. BURDEN means "give me a reference" - this is straight out of Lederer. Rhoads made a joke or confession about cancer transplantation in 1931 which led to his scandal, investigation, whitewashing, Albizu re-purposing, etc. Then, he goes on to serve in a role as Director of an institution whose head wrote about the topic he was joking about. He also actually performed a transplantation like this later in his career, consensually, which I believe we have or had in the article. How isn't this relevant and why are you removing it? Andrevan@ 16:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to be surprised and to question motives or you can assume good faith, per WP:AGF - that's your prerogative. This article is about an individual, not about a hospital or corporation. Individuals don't have sucessor or predecessors; for this reason its infobox does not have succesor and predecessor either. If you want to keep that sort of info, you need to show it it necessary to make sense of the rest of the paragraph, etc.

You are only halfway correct in your BURDEN rebuttal, and I think that's fuzzying your judgment: WP:BURDEN does relate to verifiability, which your sources do satisfy. However, the info is still irrelevant to the article, per WP:WEIGHT. That info -does- belong in the article about the institution, but not here. No need to confuse the reader with info that goes off into a tangent. Mercy11 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop removing sourced information and discuss or you will be blocked. Individuals indeed have successors and predecessors, take a look at any article about a congressman, governor, etc. It makes perfect sense in context. BURDEN is in no way relevant to this since this is sourced information. I don't understand how WEIGHT applies here; we're not giving undue weight to any perspective by talking about Ewing's research interests, which are the same as Rhoads' "joke" topic. This exact information appears in Lederer which is an article about this case. Andrevan@ 18:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• It appears that Lederer noted Ewing's specialty as part of setting the context for the period, to show some of the cancer research, as well as to show the environment that Rhoads was entering at Memorial Hospital. I agree with Andrevan that this is relevant to Rhoads' article, as it shows the nature of the medical world and the standard that Rhoads had to meet.Parkwells (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• I also agree with the inclusion of the sentence. It provides context and is not overly long. Parkwells, I hope you don't mind I changed the indentation; it will make it easier to determine a consensus for this de facto RfC. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest we unprotect the article so Parkwells can get back to his very good work without Mercy11 reverting him. Andrevan@ 00:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, Andrevan you can unprotect the article so Parkwells can get back to his very good work. And if Parkwells has any problems with my edits, I am sure Parkwells knows the place to discuss would be at ANI, not here. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

  Are you being sarcastic? Andrevan@ 03:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Answered in your talk page, Andrevan. Seems more appropriate there. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cornelius P. Rhoads/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Images

• I think the fair use rationale on the Rhodes image is appropriate, and the other pic seems OK, too.

Early life and education

• Do we know his parents' names?

Puerto Rico

• You should make clear that Nieto Editores is a journal (i think that's what it is, based on a Google search). Maybe something like "... the journal Nieto Editores reported..."
• "...while referred to as patients, they were primarily clinical subjects. " I'm not sure what the distinction is. It might benefit the reader to explain it.

Overall

• This is a nice article. You've managed to keep a neutral position on what could be an inflammatory subject. I've enjoyed reading it, and look forward to the resulting of those minor issues remaining.--Coemgenus (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Did a bit of editing and would appreciate more feedback. Andrevan@ 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Those edits all look great. On a second read-through, I've found nothing except the one suggesting below. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Scandal

• It might be good to use the {{blockquote}} template for the letter text. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  Done'Andrevan'@ 13:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• All right: looks like we're good to go. Congratulations! Thanks for writing a good article. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhoads Award

"He concluded there was no evidence of unethical human experimentation, but the letter was so offensive that the prize should be renamed. AACR concurred and stripped the honor from Rhoads because of his racism." "The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) established the Cornelius P. Rhoads Memorial Award posthumously in his honor in 1979. (In 2002, it renamed the award due to Rhoads' racism expressed in his 1932 letter.)" "In 2003 the AACR renamed the award, stripping the honor from Rhoads posthumously. The AACR indicated that the new name would be retroactive and past awardees would receive updated plaques."

And the new name is...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.153.40.58 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Good question. We'd have to contact the [www.aacr.org/professionals/research/scientific-achievement-awards-and-lecturships/awards-and-lectureships/ AACR] to find out. The source in this wiki article only says the award name would be changed. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Doing a search on their website (https://www.aacr.org/?s=rhoads+award&search_type=global) results with a few researchers getting the "Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cancer Research (Rhoads Award)" and similar, as well as most directly "The inaugural Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cancer Research (formerly the Rhoads Award) is presented to Malcolm A.S. Moore." at (https://www.aacr.org/about-the-aacr/aacr-narrative-history/1964-1981/) MartinezMD (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@MartinezMD: Thank you. Awesome. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)