Seems very plausible but at the same time the article isn't particularly good, I feel.
It's very general and doesn't really provide sources and citations for things like what the specific effects of certain drugs were, subprojects are named but the scope and focus not defined at all.
Particularly I feel like the connection between a treatment of anti-depressants and ECT to the process of "depatterning" is very loose, since depatterning involved full on sedation or induced paralysis while being subjected to looped tape messages, if that is what Paul Robeson was subjected to thats one thing, but intentionally excessive ECT treatment would be a separate treatment and method.
Basically my issue is I don't feel like this article is actually much more useful or informative to the reader than just reading basically the sentence "Paul Robeson was a victim of the CIA" on it's own, I don't think the references to specific MKULTRA terms are of much worth due to just kind of being strewn about conspiratorially.
Like searching for Subproject 111 seems to bring up descriptions of studying how people perform at simple tasks depending on various regular motivators, in isolation relatively mundane but something that would interest the CIA in connection to every other point in the MKULTRA spiderweb, but it doesnt help much to reference it in the article.
Neither does it feel very useful to reference doctors as having links to MKULTRA based on having been connected to hospitals that had projects going on there, because that eventually just becomes a huge % of psychiatrists and doctors in America at that time in general, due to the nature of MKULTRA as contracting out and funding experiments rather than having one special CIA guy for each project.
Also just a side note but they reference an "MKULTRA historian", "Mike Minnicino" without citing what he actually has written on the subject, and I cant seem to find anyone who fits that name and description except a now deceased actual Larouchite who seems to have been the one who coined the term "Cultural Marxism" before denouncing that work after Anders Breiviks terror attacks in Norway.
Seems very plausible but at the same time the article isn't particularly good, I feel.
It's very general and doesn't really provide sources and citations for things like what the specific effects of certain drugs were, subprojects are named but the scope and focus not defined at all.
Particularly I feel like the connection between a treatment of anti-depressants and ECT to the process of "depatterning" is very loose, since depatterning involved full on sedation or induced paralysis while being subjected to looped tape messages, if that is what Paul Robeson was subjected to thats one thing, but intentionally excessive ECT treatment would be a separate treatment and method.
Basically my issue is I don't feel like this article is actually much more useful or informative to the reader than just reading basically the sentence "Paul Robeson was a victim of the CIA" on it's own, I don't think the references to specific MKULTRA terms are of much worth due to just kind of being strewn about conspiratorially.
Like searching for Subproject 111 seems to bring up descriptions of studying how people perform at simple tasks depending on various regular motivators, in isolation relatively mundane but something that would interest the CIA in connection to every other point in the MKULTRA spiderweb, but it doesnt help much to reference it in the article.
Neither does it feel very useful to reference doctors as having links to MKULTRA based on having been connected to hospitals that had projects going on there, because that eventually just becomes a huge % of psychiatrists and doctors in America at that time in general, due to the nature of MKULTRA as contracting out and funding experiments rather than having one special CIA guy for each project.
Also just a side note but they reference an "MKULTRA historian", "Mike Minnicino" without citing what he actually has written on the subject, and I cant seem to find anyone who fits that name and description except a now deceased actual Larouchite who seems to have been the one who coined the term "Cultural Marxism" before denouncing that work after Anders Breiviks terror attacks in Norway.