> "People claim those who were the teachers knew it was fake, but interviews years later have people claiming they really thought they killed the person in the other room."

Some of the teachers undoubtedly thought it was fake, others did not. And importantly a majority of the teachers were not properly debriefed until several months later (some never were). The "dehoaxing" most received immediately following the experiment was itself another hoax which in some cases was meant to persuade the teacher they had in fact been shocking somebody (but that the shocks were only very slight harmless shocks.) The dehoaxing was meant to introduce the teachers to the learner, to demonstrate that he was alive. Some did not even receive this dehoaxing, presumably because procedure was violated, which explains why a handful of them might believe they'd killed somebody.

> And importantly a majority of the teachers were not properly debriefed until several months later (some never were)

No. No. No. That is entirely wrong. Watch the original video. Every one of the teachers is introduced to the learner after the experiment and they were told no actual harm came to them. At least in the original Milgram iteration, all of the teachers knew by the end.

And self-reporting about participation in a famous experiment, folks are known to exaggerate.

There are some folks who are pretty dead set on maligning Milgram alongside Zimbardo. Namely, Gina Perry wrote a book criticizing Milgram and his experiment's validity [1]. I haven't read it, but looking at some of the reviews, it seems most likely that it's a mixture of truth and the typical schlocky scientific journalism I've come to know and revile. [2]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Behind-Shock-Machine-psychology-exper...

[2] Funny anecdote- when I was still in science (brain imaging) a reporter from a major news outlet interviewed another member of my lab about what brain activity would look like in a dead person's brain. The question was entirely serious.

[2] Brain activity appears to continue after people are dead, according to new study. (9 march 2017)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/what-happens-die-...

The news article you cite is a bit over dramatic- the distinction between clinical and brain death has been around for a while. None of what is in there is really news, although it might be somewhat remarkable if they found activity 10 minutes out; then again, this is research from the medical community, which as others have pointed out is often quite methodologically flawed.

You too are being slightly too generous towards scientific journalism- a typical non-scientific audience wouldn't make the distinction between clinical and brain death, and the reporter likely wasn't either.

Might [2] have been related to this?

https://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/

You might be giving the reporter too much credit. It's very unlikely that she was familiar with that study before asking her question.

Minor point:

>...with all the work they put in at Harvard

I think the experiments were done at Yale.

Milgram wrote a book about the experiments and I agree, (at least as described in his book), they worked hard to test the hypothesis. (Setting up experiments outside the university, using both male and female experimenters, Having the experimenter play the student, etc.)

https://www.amazon.com/Obedience-Authority-Experimental-Pere...