Talk:1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~pellr/lansberry/mkultra.pdf
  • In 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning on 2011-05-25 03:27:09, 404 Not Found
  • In 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning on 2011-06-04 17:38:30, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

i think i located this source here: http://web.archive.org/web/20071128230208/http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~pellr/lansberry/mkultra.pdf

but i don't know where it goes now.Colbey84 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus of opinion among academics re: ergot poisoning

Hi LuckyLouie. If you want to say that the vast majority of academic sources, including very recent ones, accept ergot poisoning as the cause of the epidemic, you will need to provide citations to that effect. The only citation offered so far dates from 1951, immediately following the mass poisoning. The article makes clear that ergotism was initially the accepted explanation, however several other theories have been advanced during the last six decades. Recent academic opinions would need to be cited for your assertion to stand, and they would need to at least acknowledge awareness of the other theories. Apostle12 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Relible source (ABC) states contaminated bread theory is disproven (in inquires and court cases). Does not clarify. However, it states that baker and his bread were cleared. The second half of the story is Albarelli [1]

Reliable source (BBC) states Albarelli does not count out bread (LSD before or after cooking) where Kaplan refutes any bread connection (neither LSD nor ergot) [2]

Johnvr4 (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I took a stab at improving this.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources used for your recent Pont-Saint-Esprit edit

Hello. As near as I can tell, the sources you added to not refer specifically to the Pont-Saint-Esprit poisoning. Rather, they discus ergot poisoning. Therefor these sources cannot be used to support your contention that "the vast majority of academic sources" support the ergot poisoning hypothesis. Please demonstrate how these sources are relevant, or provide others. Failing that, I will edit to include the ergto poisoning hypothesis as one theory among others. Thank you. Apostle12 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact remains that none of the sources you added refers to the Pont-Saint-Esprit poisoning. There is no validity to your edit claiming most academics support the ergot theory. Apostle12 (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Explorations Into Brain Function - Page 221 (Oxford University Press, 2001) - Epidemics of ergot poisoning have continued into the twentieth century. A major epidemic erupted in 1951 when a baker in Pont Saint Esprit, Prance, made bread with contaminated, illegal flour.
• Poetic Madness and the Romantic Imagination - Page 180 (Penn State Press, 2010) - Although an entire community in Manchester fell victim to the nervous tremors and hallucinations of ergotism in 1927 as did 300 residents of Pont Saint Esprit as late as 1951,' such outbreaks of ergot poisoning have been virtually eliminated in modern Europe.
• Alcamo's Fundamentals of Microbiology: Body Systems Edition - Page 734 (Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2012) - In Pont Saint Esprit, a small village in the south of France, more than 50 villagers went insane for a month after eating ergotized rye flour.

Are you reading the same sources I am? - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I did find these very brief mentions of the Pont-Saint Esprit mass poisoning incident. But the focus was hardly the incident itself, much less was it a discussion of ergotism v. other possible causes by academics interested in this incident. The general subject of all three articles was ergot poisoning.Apostle12 (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's glaringly obvious that the 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit outbreak is used to define ergotism in standard college-level textbooks. None of them mention any controversy, much less a secret CIA ULTRA program. I see no reason for me to have to citation bomb the lead in order to prove that this view is the mainstream view and it is held by reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The incident is not "used to define ergotism;" it is mentioned, that's all. And the research that Albarelli did over a ten-year period, the results of which became available only 2-3 years ago, cannot be expected to appear in textbooks. Apostle12 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The length of time he worked on it isn't relevant to Wikipedia. The problem is that Albarelli's "Pont Saint Esprit CIA LSD plot" speculations are ignored by reliable sources because it is a fringe theory. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

i made a couple small changes, but after reading the Talk page, i see they might not be "okay," so i'm mentioning them here, and explaining my reasoning, and opening it up for discussion.

in the lede: the last sentence. it HAD noted that only 2 of the theories have been disputed. i changed it because it seems that each presented theory has been disputed. the only one i couldn't find any actual dispute about is that of the grain silo fungus. not that people are rallying around it as the explanation--it appears to simply be ignored. anyway, i think it makes more sense to simply state that each had been disputed, rather than single out a couple of them. plus, the original sentence was grammatically awkward.

i noted that Sandoz Chemical Company is now Novartis and linked to their WP article. later, added a link to the WP article on the CIA.

under Ergot Poisoning section, the last sentence:

—i changed "predominant contemporary investigators" to "recent investigators." 'contemporary' was possibly confusing here, as it could mean 'now/currently,' but it could also mean 'investigators at the time of the poisoning.' i came up with "recent" but maybe somebody has a better idea.

—i read through both of the references appended to this sentence, and "predominant" doesn't appear in either. because it's not in one of the references, and because it could be seen as opinion or attempting to take a side, i just deleted it. it didn't really make sense here anyway, as i don't know that any of the investigators are widely considered to have 'power, influence, or authority over others.' they are "predominant" only in that they are the only ones currently investigating this (that has gone public, at any rate).Colbey84 (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE we give weight to what the high quality mainstream sources say. NPOV does not mean making all theories sound equally plausible or equally disputed. See WP:NOTNEUTRAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

okay. your change to the lede sentence is fine with me. but your edit of the last sentence of the Ergot Poisoning section can be read that the "problems" with the ergot theory have been both challenged and "ruled out" by recent investigators. i think you mean that the ergot theory itself has been challenged, because of the problems with it, and then...i'm not sure what you mean is "ruled out"—the "problems" or the challenges (maybe by different 'recent investigators'?).Colbey84 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure who you are talking to. I only edited the lead [3]. I did not touch the other section of the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: upon reviewing the article as a whole, I went back and made edits to the other sections of the article. When fringe theories compete with mainstream opinion, Wikipedia is not "neutral" i.e. every point of view does not have to be reported as equally valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

UNDUE focus

There is a problem with weight when one recent conspiracy theory is given more coverage than the incident itself. For this reason I have trimmed it down to a summary of similar length to those given the other possible explanations. Agricolae (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Several editors have labored for months to properly describe the events surrounding this 1951 incident. The reason Albarelli's work (not a conspiracy theory by the way) needs more space is because it is a complex story--exceptional claims require exceptional proof. Apostle12 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedias aren't the place to tell complex stories. Let's revert back and discuss your changes here. Can you give me the one (short) paragraph summary? Garamond Lethet
c 04:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"A conspiracy theory explains an important social, political, or economic event as being caused or covered up by a covert group or organization." Albarelli claims that this event was caused by a covert CIA operation and has since been covered up by the US govt. That seems to fit the definition. Exceptional claims do require exceptional proof, but an encyclopedia is not the place for such advocacy. Agricolae (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem unaware of the vast body of well-documented information concerning covert CIA operations, dealt with in detail in WP's MKULTRA article and the Operation Paperclip article, among others. This is not "conspiracy theory," though some conspiracy theories are associated with these topics. Apostle12 (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken, but I see no point to discussing my awareness. Agricolae (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Many complex stories are told within the Wikipedia domain. Until yesterday the information regarding the 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning incident appeared on the Pont-Saint-Esprit page. Then it was moved to this page, which is fine, but massively distorted. LuckyLouie, for example, keeps writing that the vast majority of academics support the ergot poisoning theory, even though the only source he can offer for that is the original story written more than 60 years ago in 1951. The other theories have had entire books devoted to them.

The most complex theory is that forwarded by Albarelli, and it is backed by considerable evidence gathered through Freedom of Information demands. Perhaps this information needs its own page, however I believe the real intent is to make the story less and less accessible to the average Wikipedia reader. There is currently a lawsuit brought by Frank Olson's survivors, as his death is linked to the 1951 mass poisoning incident. Your request for a "one (short) paragraph summary" has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Apostle12 (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you want policy, I could start with WP:CIVIL: rather than reading you the riot act I was trying to engage you in a discussion (WP:BRD and all that, not policy of course). But I can go either way. Albarelli is way, way out on the fringe—if you're reduced to publishing at at Trine Day then you've pretty much guaranteed that no rational person need pay any attention to you. I was going to suggest you write the Terrible Mistake article, but as best I can tell, Albarelli's book hasn't been reviewed by any non-blog publication, so that won't happen. I think I can make a pretty good argument based on WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE that Albarelli's book shouldn't be mentioned here at all.

So in the interest of discussing rather than starting an edit war, would you mind making a policy-based case as to why Albarelli should be in the article? Garamond Lethet
c 04:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what WP:CIVIL has to do with it; no one has been uncivil here. I would be happy to write the Terrible Mistake article. Albarelli's work has been reviewed by the New York Post, The Telegraph (UK), and the Huffington Post (the first Pulitzer Prize winning digital media source). Blogs aplenty, of course, including the Daily Kos. At the very least, one short paragraph in the 1951 Pont-Staint-Esprit mass poisoning article, with a link to Albarelli: A Terrible Mistake would seem appropriate. To dismiss him merely because Trine Day published A Terrible Mistake seems out of line; the book is carefully researched, backed by tens of thousands of pages of government documents, and taken seriously by anyone familiar with the series of incidents surrounding Frank Olson's death. Apostle12 (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have links to the reviews? Garamond Lethet
c 05:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/system_the_cia_test_lsd_subway_the_FCxMaMKrJgtH42RZ0lY6oN

The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415082/French-bread-spiked-with-LSD-in-CIA-experiment.html

Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-roddy/a-terrible-mistake-hp-alb_b_485774.html

Frederick News Post (located in Frederick, Maryland where Olson worked): http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=133414

Daily Kos (premier online political community, 2.5 million unique visitors per month): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/04/14/857099/-Book-Review-A-Terrible-Mistake-by-Hank-Albarelli-Jr

East County Magazine: http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/3830 (5 million unique visitors per month, San Diego Press Club named East County Magazine the best general interest website in San Diego County for 2009. Named second best news site after the San Diego Union-Tribune. To date, ECM has won dozens of journalism prizes for investigative reporting, news, features, multi-cultural coverage, environmental reporting and more in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Investigative reporting award from Society for Professional Journalists, San Diego chapter.)

Crime Magazine (preeminent true crime site, 5 million unique visitors: http://crimemagazine.com/category/authors/h-p-albarelli-jr

Not a review, but corroborative info from The New York Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/01/magazine/01OLSON.html?pagewanted=all Apostle12 (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That looks like enough to justify a small article on the book. It's not (in my opinion) enough to justify additional material to this article. Garamond Lethet
c 05:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A small article on the book is fine; I'll work on it. Apostle12 (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

{e/c} What WP:CIVIL has to do with it is the implication that "the real intent is to make the story less and less accessible to the average Wikipedia reader." To attribute to other editors such nefarious motivations is indeed incivil. As to the book, a fringe theory seems always to be 'taken seriously by those who know the real facts'. Goes with the territory, so hardly speaks in its favor. Agricolae (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I note that the Albarelli book, "A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments", was not even considered reliable enough to be used in the article Frank Olson. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is part of "Further Reading," and one objection was raised on "Talk." Albarelli has worked closely with the Olson family, so the results of his research need to be incorporated into the article. Apostle12 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Pending discussion, I am restoring the article to the May 13th, 2015 version of the article since there is not support nor appropriate discussion or consensus for the mass deletion on May 17th with reason: "undue focus" on a "fringe theory."Johnvr4 (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

CIA test theory

Some of the relevant information related to the field test accusation predates or has no link to Albarelli. Performed a small edit to make that clear. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

maybe this happened in the edit, maybe it was there before. at any rate, i was confused reading the 3rd paragraph here. it seems to be about Albarelli, his book, and his theory, but halfway through, there's suddenly a quote from Fuller, who was discussed in the 1st paragraph. so i was wondering, "did Albarelli interview Fuller? or was Fuller discussing Albarelli's book?" anyway, it's confusing.Colbey84 (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

okay, i read all the sources, and tried to correct this section. what a mess. the part that had me confused, is, based on the sources, all from Albarelli. perhaps this was the change that John made--to stick "Fuller also claimed that" in the middle of the paragraph, but without punctuation that allowed it to be understood. i don't have Fuller's book, so i can't check to see if he did make a similar claim. but i left it in, with the reference to his book, but differentiated it from the Albarelli claims. i cleaned up the quoting here by taking one longer quote copied out of one of the sources and making it a blockquote.

next, the comment about Kaplan. it was disconcerting to read this, knowing that Kaplan wrote his book before Albarelli wrote his, and not be given a date for when Kaplan dismissed Albarelli's claims. i found it in the 2010 BBC article (ref. #8). for the 2 references listed for the original sentence, "Kaplan has dismissed Albarelli's theories and assertions"—

—#13 - i didn't check, other than to see if something came up. it did, but i don't speak French. it was either just a stub, or a video, though.

—#14 - this is NOT what it's claimed to be. it links to the "Global Dashboard" and is an article by David Steven, from March 2010, and is a critique of the Telegraph article that the reference here claims to point to. the critique is of this article: “French bread spiked with LSD in CIA experiment,” by Henry Samuel in Paris, 11 Mar 2010:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415082/French-bread-spiked-with-LSD-in-CIA-experiment.html. nowhere does this show up: Josset, Christophe (2010-03-12). "Did the CIA poison a French town with LSD?". France 24. which is what reference 14 claims to be.

so i guess it's just a broken link, but it's weird that it goes to a different article/critique of article about the same topic.

okay, all i really was going to do was ask a question, and then i saw ssScienccce's comment on the Talk page with the description of what actually happened, and i was going to pop that in. because THAT is what i wanted to know when i came to this page--what the heck happened? but i got distracted with all this other stuff. experience has taught me that, since i spent a few hours going back and forth between sources and trying to figure out what went where and why things were as they were, that someone will just arbitrarily come out and undo all my edits without even a discussion. i hope that won't happen here, too. i'm not trying to step on toes, and i'm not trying to slant the article. oh - yup. well, whatever.Colbey84 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

So... What actually took place?

This article is entirely about possible causes of the poisoning. Shouldn't it include some kind of description of the event itself? MQDuck (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. We have some pretty good sources to work from [4]. Not sure why the present article is focused on alternative explanations and fringe theories about the CIA. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(corrected) Google translation of http://www.lepoint.fr/culture/1951-trip-sous-acide-a-pont-saint-esprit-09-07-2012-1482979_3.php

The events started on august 16. The two doctors in the village received about 20 people complaining about digestion problems: nausia, vomiting, hot flashes.

The following days, the symptoms worsen and mutate into unbearable hallucinatory crises. Journals of the time describe the small town as a Dantesque hell. Taken to hospital on carts or cars, the sick howl, groan and swear. Others, foaming at the mouth, terrified by the sound of ambulance sirens, run through the streets. Unclean beasts, chimeras and colorful flashes populate their delusions, when they are not the flames or voices from beyond the grave.

The night of August 24, which will be described Gabbai as the "night of the Apocalypse", the nightmare reached its peak. A man thinking he is a plane jumps from the second floor. Another imagines eating snakes. A boy of 11 years tries to strangle his mother. Psychic symptoms last several months, until late October. Result: more than a dozen deaths, hundreds of patients, including sixty who were interned in psychiatric hospitals.

This tragedy deeply marks the population, especially because the bread, a commodity essential and symbolic, is the cause. Experts from around the world will then attempt to unravel the mystery of what became "the affair of the cursed bread '. All those who became ill had ingested bread sold by Briand bakery. Very quickly, failing to know the name of evil, the wildest rumors are circulating about the alleged perpetrators. A newspaper, quoted by the historian Steven Kaplan observes: "They accuse the baker (RPF former candidate protected a councilor Gaullist), his assistant, the water from the fountains, modern machines, foreign powers, germ warfare, the devil, the SNCF, the Pope, Stalin, nationalizations. " The Spiripontains applaud the arrest of a Poitevin miller who supplied flour used in Pont-Saint-Esprit, and protest when he is released later.

If anyone wants to add it to the article, feel free. Ssscienccce (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

CIA conspiracy theory proven true

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415082/French-bread-spiked-with-LSD-in-CIA-experiment.html --Hienafant (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

My edit summary should have referred to MOS:CLAIM. While we seem to agree that the version of events in Albarelli's book are rather unlikely, that does not automatically render them a "conspiracy theory". Most RS report Albarelli's work without suggesting anything remotely resembling that characterisation. No world government, paedo networks, lizard people or unmelted steel in sight. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It fits the definition of a conspiracy theory and there are no lizard people involved in 9/11 or election stealing conspiracy theories. But sources should indeed support it; I think that the only currently cited one that describes it as "the CIA conspiracy theory" is the France24 source (I've not taken the time to search for more yet). As for "claim", the manual of style discourages the unjustified use, but policy takes precedence like GEVAL/YESPOV of WP:NPOV and "claim" is very justified here (that's also how sources describe it, like "Claims of a CIA Experiment"). —PaleoNeonate – 17:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The sources cited are actually reporting the release of an admittedly WP:SENSATIONAL book by a single author. "A new book claims the CIA did horrible things" is much different than an independent investigation and analysis by editorial staff. There's no reason to give this book any added credibility that the sources don't. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)