Dr. Reiner Fuellmich joins Maria Zeee to announce the groundbreaking news that Crimes Against Humanity trials are scheduled to begin in New Zealand through the truly independent Maori people.
No payments are being made to these lawyers or their associates, many have now worked years to bring the 'COVID EVENTERS' to justice and therefore scrutiny in a court of law. Nothing can stop the tsunami of exponential knowledge breaking now, we can only make it faster and help the momentum gain more coverage.
PLEASE SHARE WHAT YOU KNOW WIDELY.
Anagram
COVID EVENTERS=contrives deev
deev in British English
(diːv ) (in Persian folklore) a wicked and demonic supernatural creature. Collins English Dictionary.
NONE of those organizations follow any sort of code of ethics. They stopped doing so when they realized we'd allow them to get away with ANYTHING they pull on us. We've earned this for being soft and complacent. We're become a nation of subs and cucks in America.
This bioethics guide is an important one, too. Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a leading resource for global health policymaking ethical guidance. Nuffield Council is largely funded by Wellcome Trust (Glaxo-Wellcome), which until last year was led by Jerermy Farrar, who is now the WHO's Chief Scientist. Wellcome Trust was a Zero-Covid founding member, with Jeremy Farrar arguing for more extreme lockdowns mandates in the UK, he envied China's totalitarian approach, even resigned from the UK's pandemic response team because it wasn't totalitarian enough for him. Wellcome Trust is a peer global health influencer of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for those who aren't familiar with it. And Jeremy Farrar was one of the names revealed in Fauci's emails concerning the Wuhan lab origination theory. And, Fauci's wife is the NIH's Chief Bioethicist. So this topic of ethics you raise, bioethics, is a very, very, very important piece of what failed beginning in 2020. Blowing through all previous guardrails like your post explains. Here's another very important version of ethics guidance, about many subjects, including infectious disease, pandemics, vaccinations. They practice "The Stewardship Model" of our betters tending to their otherwise helpless or insolent charges:
Chapter 4 Case Study - Infectious Disease (p 51-77)
4.10
Selective vaccination to protect individuals who are vulnerable or at-risk: Examples include:
annual influenza vaccines for health professionals, elderly and disabled people; and vaccinations advised for people travelling to regions where specific infectious diseases are common. (p 54)
4.11
This may be achieved through the targeting of vaccinations at those who are particularly susceptible to ill health, as in the case of influenza vaccines, or through the protection offered by population immunity as it will clearly extend to the most vulnerable (p 54)
4.19
The paragraphs above illustrate that there is a wide range of different risks and benefits, affecting a variety of people, that need to be considered when deciding whether or not to introduce or change a particular vaccination programme. This may give rise to competing interpretations about whether or not a vaccination presents an acceptable balance of risks and benefits. So although a healthcare professional may be keen to enrol a person in a programme, taking the view that the risks are acceptable and that the benefits to the person concerned and/or others are substantial, the individual may be undecided, or not persuaded, for whatever reason. The fact that some healthcare professionals receive payments for meeting vaccination targets may further complicate such situations.35 Also, the interests of companies involved in the (expensive and potentially risky) business of developing and producing vaccines may need to be considered. Some are critical of the extent to which these industries influence debate and policies on vaccines, and are sceptical as to whether these interventions are genuinely offered on the basis of medical need only. One consultation respondent who took this viewpoint commented that:
“those who support vaccination most strongly are the drug companies, who stand to profit the most”. Mrs Esther Hollands (p 57)
4.21
While we are not aware of any countries that go as far as to force individuals to be vaccinated, there are several approaches that may be used to influence their behaviour. We consider three main types: quasi-mandatory programmes, in which individuals are required to be vaccinated unless they qualify for an exemption and where there are penalties for those who do not comply; (p 58)
4.23
Further questions may be asked over whether quasi-mandatory policies are just, as the punishments for refusal to vaccinate, such as fines or refusal of access to education may disproportionately affect those on lower incomes. (p 59)
4.25
Quasi-mandatory approaches tend therefore to shift the emphasis away from protecting the interests of the individual, and towards providing benefits to others. (p 60)
4.27
We identified two circumstances in which quasi-mandatory vaccination measures are more likely to be justified. First, for highly contagious and serious diseases, for example with characteristics similar to smallpox. Secondly, for disease eradication if the disease is serious and if eradication is within reach. (p 60)
4.29
On the basis of the value of community and stewardship considerations, it is in principle ethically justified to encourage individuals to take part in vaccination programmes when there is no, or only a small, personal benefit, but significant benefits for others. However, consent is essential, and there should be careful assessments of the benefits to be gained for the population and the possible harm that may result for the people who receive the vaccination. (p 60)
4.56 Control of Infectious disease (p 70)
4.58 Issues raised by quarantine and isolation (p 72)
4.63 Use of vaccines in control of infectious diseases
[this sentence is quite revealing: "the likely global scale of the disease would lead to demand for pandemic vaccines that is likely to far exceed their supply." They had to market, push, incentivize, implore, mandate them, they had to artificially create demand. Had the virus been dangerous the demand would've exceeded the supply. Revealing.] (p 73)
4.69 The importance of information in the case of an epidemic or pandemic
Downplaying the risk of the disease may lead to higher rates of infection. By contrast, a campaign that overstates the risks may lead to panic and lack of trust in healthcare professionals in the longer term.
[And a framework of] prior public debate to explore the ethical, professional and practical implications of an influenza pandemic, condition public expectations and ensure that decisions are made in an inclusive and transparent way."(p 76)
The entire 225 pages is basically a masturbatory exercise in how enlightened and ethical they are for giving voice to individual liberty, balanced with collective public health needs. Oddly, always siding with totalitarianism when down to brass tacks. They give lots of wiggle room in their words to allow for it under ethical guidelines, not meant to be firm barricades protecting individual liberty, or even consent. Suggested. But negotiable. Ethics!! As written by well-meaning totalitarians.
Bioethics aren't just about pandemics and vaccines. They involve things like Newgenics, CRSPR technology, designer babies, and biotechnological advances like AI and transhumanism that outpace ethical deliberation and law. Bioethics involve distasteful subjects like sterilization and euthanasia. Canadian ethics now saying that euthanasia for the poor, depressed and homeless is...ethical!!
Buck v. Bell, American Eugenics, and the Bad Man Test:
Putting Limits on Newgenics in the 21st Century
Minnesota Journal on Law and Inequality, January, 2020
"It is important to note that in eugenics’ earlier heyday in the 1920s and 1930s, the movement was still clearly based on pseudoscience. Should large-scale coercive or systematic programs be attempted again in the future—maybe under a different name, or under the guise of predicting, preventing, or curing disease—they could be carried out with a level of scientific precision of which our 20th century predecessors only dreamed.
Numerous authors have addressed the ethical issues surrounding “newgenic” practices, and, similar to bioethicist Julie Aultman, encouraged “collective moral deliberation” to address the challenges they present: “[t]o avoid unjust eugenomic practices that discriminate, segregate, disrespect and avoid issues of confidentiality and privacy, subjecting persons to unfair and intolerable treatment, we need to understand which moral principles ought to guide our decisions and actions.”
However, as Aultman points out, typically “ethics lags behind” science, and “this division creates obstacles for serious moral deliberation and critical developments in policy-making involving the social and economic implications of genetic research and technology.”
Maybe we will find that there is too much profit, speed, and power in genomics to keep everyone focused on ethics and morals once someone discovers the secrets to turning humans into non human species or supermen, creating alien life, achieving immortality, or wiping out entire populations with a single genetic tweak, for example."
[Note: Buck v. Bell, eugenics "three generations of imbeciles is enough" SCOTUS 8-1 ruling survives as constitutional law in the US today, upheld as recently as 2003. Weakened by Skinner v Oklahoma in 1942, but the US eugenics law that the Nazi's raised as defense at Nuremberg remains largely constitutional in 2023. Our bioethicists say it's Ethical!!]
Bioethics. Negotiable. Flexible. Political. It's happened before. This read will be of the history of a horror. Take what you will from it that you may recognize around us less than a century later. What you may recognize seeing during the height of the pandemic, some still lingering. Ethicists of the time said it was all Ethical!!
Useless Eaters: Disability as Genocidal Marker in Nazi Germany
Second, because many of those with disabilities were now more visible through outpatient programs, their infirmities and their sometimes inappropriate or undesirable behavior were often considered a threat to public decency and social order. Accordingly, inappropriate public behavior by people with disabilities was often dealt with in terms of legal action and through the criminal justice system, thus melding disability and criminality in the public mind. Professional and public debate had raised the imperative of social control to prevent the proliferation of asylum inmates, including those with disabilities, whose characteristic behaviors were now firmly perceived to be at best undesirable and at worst criminal.
...
It was at this point that the seeds of genocide were sown among professionals and ordinary German citizens alike. The juxtaposition of severe economic constraints, crowded asylums, the attachment of levels of economic viability to human worth, and the sense that people with disabilities formed a burdensome and often criminal element in society all significantly added fuel to ethical debates concerning euthanasia and sterilization. By the late 1930s, there was open discussion among many asylum administrators about actually killing inmates.
...
However, in the 1890s the meaning of euthanasia in Europe, and especially in Germany, came to include two other aspects. First, the notion of a voluntary "right to die" was extended to mean that in some instances the request for euthanasia could be made by persons other than the suffering patient. Second, the extraordinary levels of care accorded the terminally ill and asylum inmates again raised the issue of negative human worth and underlined the possibility of involuntary euthanasia
...
The distinction between voluntary euthanasia and involuntary killing was thus effectively eradicated, and an ominous term was coined for the first time: "life unworthy of life."
...
By the early 20th century, scientists had amassed a great deal of pseudodata portending to show differences between individuals, genders, and ethnic groups by rank ordering any population trait from superior to inferior.
...
In addition, levels of socially appropriate behavior (law-abiding, self-regulating, restrained, and conformist) were judged superior to socially inappropriate behavior (criminality or antisocial behavior. These and other classifications soon precipitated both informal social changes and more formal legal measures.
...
Second, an offshoot of Darwinism, Social Darwinism, held that not only biological traits but also social characteristics and their resultant behaviors were genetically determined. Social Darwinism's ideas of difference, therefore, in the form of eugenics, appeared to have immediate and effective application for a number of societal problems, such as "hereditary" social traits (e.g., socially inappropriate or criminal behavior). Here the rationale was simple: All visible traits of human difference were genetically determined. Thus, just as eye and hair color were genetically determined, so were drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and other socially inappropriate behaviors. A simple extension of these perceptions led to the idea that an effective way of controlling or eliminating these problems was by sterilization, incarceration, or death.
...
Eugenics captured the imagination of researchers in Europe, England, and the United States. In the United States, politicians purportedly promoting the public good were quick to recognize eugenics as a powerful tool for shaping public opinion against people with disabilities. Such awareness fueled laws in many states for the involuntary sterilization of people with disabilities, the most famous case perhaps being that of a Virginia woman with mental retardation. Carrie Buck, named in the 1927 landmark Buck v. Bell case
...
Thus, eugenics asserted that the "feebleminded" (a generic, inaccurate term covering everything from mental retardation to alcoholism) were almost always so because of inherited inferior characteristics. From these assumptions, they "saw the cause of the social problems of their times, such as alcoholism and prostitution, as inherited feeblemindedness, and viewed the manifestations of poverty, such as intermittent employment and chronic illness, as a hereditary degeneracy"
...
Also in 1933, the Nazis enacted the Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals, a law that further blurred the distinction between bona fide criminal behavior and inappropriate social behavior that characterized many people with disabilities. The law stipulated that these criminal asozialen (asocials) could be committed to state asylums, held in indeterminate protective custody, and, in the case of sex offenders, officially castrated
...
Hitler understood that state-sanctioned homicide would depend on other factors to severely curb public outrage until war became reality. The war, Hitler reasoned, would provide both a distraction and an excuse for officially killing those deemed undesirable. One such factor was the use of propaganda to convince the public of the desirability of some lives over others.
...
To this point, Nazi involvement with mercy killing, while implicit, appears to have been muted and uninitiated by the state. However, social perceptions of disability had been radically modified, and requests for mercy deaths were increasing and were generally viewed as more acceptable, whether conducted by individual citizens or the state. Essentially, disability was widely acknowledged to be a legitimate justification for murder.
...
Ironically, 1939 was the year designated by the Nazis as the year of "the duty to be healthy". The children's killing program was to report directly to Hitler's Chancellery through a front organization under the pseudoscientific moniker of the Committee for the Scientific Treatment of Severe, Genetically Determined Illnesses. However, this impressive title belied its function, as it was headed by Hans Hefelmann, an agricultural economist. On August 18, 1939, prior to the German invasion of Poland, which began World War II, this committee produced a secret report, disseminated to all state governments, requiring all midwives and physicians who delivered infants with obvious congenital disabilities to register these children and the nature of the disability
...
As added incentives, midwives were paid for every infant with disabilities so referred. Failure to report these cases resulted in substantial fines. This directive would also later require teachers to report these disabilities among their students in schools.
...
Information on the registered children was returned to the Reich Health Ministry in Berlin, where a panel of three professionals — physicians, psychiatrists, or a disparate array of related professionals (such as ophthalmologists) — sorted the children's records into three groups....Children in the third group, designated by a plus sign on their records, were identified for "treatment", "disinfection," "cleaning," "therapy", or "selection", all Nazi euphemisms for extermination.
...
Those designated for extermination were transferred to one of 28 facilities, among them several of Germany's oldest and most respected hospitals, where they were housed in specially designated killing wards. The Nazi authorities took great care to inform parents that their children would be safe in special wards at the clinics, which would "provide all available therapeutic interventions made possible by recent scientific discoveries". These assurances were always given with the caveat that such endeavors were also fraught with mortal risks.
There is little doubt that hospital staff were complicit in these endeavors.
The methods of killing at the institutions varied. In some instances, children were simply starved to death, which was not considered ideal because it took too long. However, starvation did allow these murders less chance of detection. Other methods included allowing children to die of exposure in the cold German winters by turning off all heat in the institution. At several asylums, children perished after being administered chemical warfare agents. A more grisly approach involved a method reserved for children who were resistant to other poisons or, because of their disability, were unable to swallow the poison in pill form: fatal injections directly into the heart. The most popular lethal drug was Luminal, a barbiturate, closely followed by morphine for children resistant to the Luminal. These were usually administered in pill or liquid form. The genius of this form of homicide was the normally expected availability of these medications in hospitals. Also, some poisons killed indirectly over short periods of time by precipitating fatal medical complications that were then reported as natural causes of death. There is evidence that physicians exchanged information about the efficacy of various medications when they visited each other's institutions or met at the Reich Ministry of Health in Berlin.
...
The murder of the children also followed a particular administrative and logistical course. As the condition of the child deteriorated following the fatal dose, the parents would be informed that their child was seriously ill, with a quick follow-up via a standardized letter announcing the child's death before parents could arrange to visit their sick child. This letter always noted that the child had died suddenly and unexpectedly of one of a number of diseases. Popular choices included brain edema and appendicitis. The favorite cause of death, however, proved to be communicable disease, which necessitated immediate cremation to avoid the danger of an institutional epidemic.
...
In this action, patients from several asylums were rounded up, taken to nearby woods, and individually shot in the back of the head. Between 1939 and 1944, almost 13,000 Polish psychiatric patients were killed in this way. However, in such instances, it quickly became evident that the perpetrators' close proximity to the resulting gore exacted a heavy psychological toll that could be reduced only by using less grisly methods.
The logistical necessities involved in killing large numbers of asylum inmates were also problematic within Germany itself.
...
A human experiment on the effectiveness of the gas was conducted in January 1940. A number of senior officials responsible for Aktion T-4, including many asylum directors and several others who would later make their names infamous at Auschwitz, gathered at a defunct prison near Berlin. Approximately 20 naked asylum inmates were herded into a prototypical gas chamber by psychiatric nurses. The enthusiastic onlookers watched closely as the inmates died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Eight further inmates were administered lethal injections, but when the poison had little immediate effect, these inmates were gassed as well. Buoyed by the dreadful success he had just witnessed, Viktor Brack, one of the top Aktion T-4 officials, victoriously declared the importance of using physicians to administer the gas through his oft-repeated motto: "The needle belongs in the hand of the doctor"
...
Based on the logistical experiences of killing children with disabilities, similar administrative networks for registering the adult victims and the sham system of notification of next of kin were put in place. The euphemistically named Community Foundation for the Care of Asylums was the official unit responsible for hiring the killers and building staff, acquiring the gas, and later recycling gold teeth and selling jewelry from the dead. Another sham organization, the Community Patients' Transport Service, Ltd., transported asylum inmates from other institutions to the killing centers.
...
Their identities were checked and they were closely observed by a physician, who attempted to match the size and appearance of the patient with a sham cause of death that was shortly to follow. Patients were then weighed, photographed, stamped with a number, and given a piece of cardboard with a corresponding number for retrieving their clothes later. Those who possessed gold dental work were further marked with an X on their backs. Others were also carefully marked if they were deemed appropriate for "scientific" autopsy after death. Most patients' fears were allayed by these seemingly routine medical procedures, which they had all undergone many times before.
...
Concocted causes of death included the now familiar list: communicable diseases such as meningitis, which was possible in people of all ages; pneumonia, a common cause of death secondary to other serious diseases; and cases of stroke, a favored sham diagnosis among the elderly.
...
There is little evidence that asylum directors openly opposed the killing of their patients. However, some questioned the legality of the program, and others deliberately avoided meetings that would have given them no choice but to become personally involved. Some quibbled with the accuracy and utility of the identification process. Scattered instances of delay, deliberate incompetence, and other forms of resistance also occurred. In spite of these efforts, reluctant asylum personnel were often reduced to making difficult choices of who would be taken to the killing centers and who would not.
...
The Role of Science
A major impetus for Nazi ideology was its claim of legitimacy based on the pseudoscience of Social Darwinism, which drove perceptions of difference from benign recognition to active genocide. Not only was the pseudoscientific claimed as science (i.e., as established fact, data based, and replicated over time), but it was used as an instrument of deceit to perpetrate murder. On one hand, the appeal to "science" allowed the willing German intelligentsia to be more easily convinced to support and participate in brutality masquerading as research. On the other hand, the claims of Social Darwinism fed the public's long-held distrust of those who were different, whether racially or in terms of disability
...
The enchantment of the intelligentsia with pseudoscience and the willingness of the public to seize pseudoscientific "facts" as legitimate knowledge remain problems in special education today, albeit in more benign forms. For example, the unfortunate history of facilitated communication (FC) eloquently demonstrates that fairly nonsensical ideas can be widely and enthusiastically embraced by people who should know better.
The enchantment of the intelligentsia with pseudoscience and the willingness of the public to seize pseudoscientific "facts" as legitimate knowledge remain problems in special education today, albeit in more benign forms. For example, the unfortunate history of facilitated communication (FC) eloquently demonstrates that fairly nonsensical ideas can be widely and enthusiastically embraced by people who should know better.
...
The Power of Ideas
The events described in this article demonstrate the power of ideas and their consequences in the real world. In Nazi Germany, harshly prejudicial ideas toward people with disabilities replaced other, less extreme ideas. Eugenics, for example, did not appear in and of itself sinister, but it was quickly co-opted for nefarious ends. The idea of eugenics was dangerous to people with disabilities because it propelled action with scant regard for decency and compassion. In the marketplace of ideas, eugenics was embraced largely because it served a wider prejudicial purpose, namely, to control and then rid Germany of people deemed different, inferior, and asocial. The minority who resisted were soon silenced in the tidal wave of a demand for conformity to a master race superior to all others.
...
Complicity of the Medical Professions
It is important to note that the enactment of prejudice against people with disabilities in Nazi Germany could not have succeeded without the complicity of the medical and adjunct professions. Power over life and death was placed firmly in the hands of physicians who became white-coated executioners, having long abandoned the "do no harm" clause of the Hippocratic Oath. Currently, there is evidence of the medical community's again being willing agents in hastening the deaths of people deemed not viable, including people with disabilities, through familiar methods for ending the lives of terminally ill people, such as starvation and death by thirst. Furthermore, there is evidence that "do no harm" is now viewed as a somewhat quaint throwback to a distant, less sophisticated era. For example, many physicians no longer take the Hippocratic Oath before beginning their careers, and many standard hospital treatment protocols now stipulate that staff physicians may override next-of-kin requests for patient treatment if the physician decides that treatment will likely be ineffective.
...
Propaganda
The Nazis needed a means of influencing public opinion for more active perpetration of actions already planned. Propaganda became a useful tool. Nazi propaganda was created by many leading German artists, authors, and other creative persons impressed by the Third Reich, who lent their credibility and prestige to film, literature, and other public projects. Inexpert in matters of science, but eager to be on the cutting edge of issues of the day, many high-profile celebrities willingly embraced National Socialist dogma.
Notice that in that definition of disability and undesirables, "useless eaters" included those who were non-conformists, asocial; disobedient, political opponents. Classified as mentally ill.
There's a new term in vogue amongst those self-imagined betters today known as "evidence-based reality." As in, the government's narrative. True or untrue as that may be.
"3. How government, private industry, and civil society can work together in the short term to help protect underrepresented groups, and engage disaffected populations who have lost faith in evidence-based reality"
And these are the types of people who get to say what "evidence-based reality" is:
So, if you engage in civil disobedience, oppose false government narratives about masks, jabs, elections, climate change, gender, etc. then you will be diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness. Because you've lost faith in evidence-based reality. You're dissociated from reality, e.g. insane. Maybe reeducation camps can help you with your illness? Or maybe not, and you'll be considered a useless eater.
Do we trust those in charge of saying what is and isn't ethical, bioethical today to not declare that which I describe above as unethical? Because I know I've lost faith in their ethics. And I'm informed by their recent actions, their current guidelines and plans, their lack of adherence to them. And I'm aware of the same types of people as them who've faced similar societal upheavals and master plan designs failing to uphold ethics with the humanity and caring as most all reading this would expect. I don't trust them one bit.
Ethics. Bioethics. This is where crimes against humanity happens. When the leading ethicists fail. Did I mention that Anthony Fauci's wife is the Chief Bioethicist at the National Institute of Health?
Why is Washington DC so corrupt...because they all believe they will never be held accountable for massive breaches of ALL Laws and Ethics....they are protected by the far left liberal judicial system within that geographic region. If they lie, cheat and/or steal they will be rewarded by those Courts...the reason why the Dems are so mad they can not control the Supreme Court too....did I mention these same unelected folks will take our tax dollars and then cry default.
Talk about breach of conduct? I don’t think they read their own code of ethics!!! Let’s start over. Get rid of all the bad players!
Thanks PH. ETHICS? GOVTURDS? Oxymoron?
Thanks Samantha. Which it wasn’t so.
Yet, Substack is definitely filling in this void.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich - BREAKING! Crimes Against Humanity Trials Begin in New Zealand!
https://rumble.com/v2rka62-dr.-reiner-fuellmich-breaking-crimes-against-humanity-trials-begin-in-new-z.html
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich joins Maria Zeee to announce the groundbreaking news that Crimes Against Humanity trials are scheduled to begin in New Zealand through the truly independent Maori people.
No payments are being made to these lawyers or their associates, many have now worked years to bring the 'COVID EVENTERS' to justice and therefore scrutiny in a court of law. Nothing can stop the tsunami of exponential knowledge breaking now, we can only make it faster and help the momentum gain more coverage.
PLEASE SHARE WHAT YOU KNOW WIDELY.
Anagram
COVID EVENTERS=contrives deev
deev in British English
(diːv ) (in Persian folklore) a wicked and demonic supernatural creature. Collins English Dictionary.
NONE of those organizations follow any sort of code of ethics. They stopped doing so when they realized we'd allow them to get away with ANYTHING they pull on us. We've earned this for being soft and complacent. We're become a nation of subs and cucks in America.
This bioethics guide is an important one, too. Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a leading resource for global health policymaking ethical guidance. Nuffield Council is largely funded by Wellcome Trust (Glaxo-Wellcome), which until last year was led by Jerermy Farrar, who is now the WHO's Chief Scientist. Wellcome Trust was a Zero-Covid founding member, with Jeremy Farrar arguing for more extreme lockdowns mandates in the UK, he envied China's totalitarian approach, even resigned from the UK's pandemic response team because it wasn't totalitarian enough for him. Wellcome Trust is a peer global health influencer of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for those who aren't familiar with it. And Jeremy Farrar was one of the names revealed in Fauci's emails concerning the Wuhan lab origination theory. And, Fauci's wife is the NIH's Chief Bioethicist. So this topic of ethics you raise, bioethics, is a very, very, very important piece of what failed beginning in 2020. Blowing through all previous guardrails like your post explains. Here's another very important version of ethics guidance, about many subjects, including infectious disease, pandemics, vaccinations. They practice "The Stewardship Model" of our betters tending to their otherwise helpless or insolent charges:
Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2007
https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf
Chapter 4 Case Study - Infectious Disease (p 51-77)
4.10
Selective vaccination to protect individuals who are vulnerable or at-risk: Examples include:
annual influenza vaccines for health professionals, elderly and disabled people; and vaccinations advised for people travelling to regions where specific infectious diseases are common. (p 54)
4.11
This may be achieved through the targeting of vaccinations at those who are particularly susceptible to ill health, as in the case of influenza vaccines, or through the protection offered by population immunity as it will clearly extend to the most vulnerable (p 54)
4.19
The paragraphs above illustrate that there is a wide range of different risks and benefits, affecting a variety of people, that need to be considered when deciding whether or not to introduce or change a particular vaccination programme. This may give rise to competing interpretations about whether or not a vaccination presents an acceptable balance of risks and benefits. So although a healthcare professional may be keen to enrol a person in a programme, taking the view that the risks are acceptable and that the benefits to the person concerned and/or others are substantial, the individual may be undecided, or not persuaded, for whatever reason. The fact that some healthcare professionals receive payments for meeting vaccination targets may further complicate such situations.35 Also, the interests of companies involved in the (expensive and potentially risky) business of developing and producing vaccines may need to be considered. Some are critical of the extent to which these industries influence debate and policies on vaccines, and are sceptical as to whether these interventions are genuinely offered on the basis of medical need only. One consultation respondent who took this viewpoint commented that:
“those who support vaccination most strongly are the drug companies, who stand to profit the most”. Mrs Esther Hollands (p 57)
4.21
While we are not aware of any countries that go as far as to force individuals to be vaccinated, there are several approaches that may be used to influence their behaviour. We consider three main types: quasi-mandatory programmes, in which individuals are required to be vaccinated unless they qualify for an exemption and where there are penalties for those who do not comply; (p 58)
4.23
Further questions may be asked over whether quasi-mandatory policies are just, as the punishments for refusal to vaccinate, such as fines or refusal of access to education may disproportionately affect those on lower incomes. (p 59)
4.25
Quasi-mandatory approaches tend therefore to shift the emphasis away from protecting the interests of the individual, and towards providing benefits to others. (p 60)
4.27
We identified two circumstances in which quasi-mandatory vaccination measures are more likely to be justified. First, for highly contagious and serious diseases, for example with characteristics similar to smallpox. Secondly, for disease eradication if the disease is serious and if eradication is within reach. (p 60)
4.29
On the basis of the value of community and stewardship considerations, it is in principle ethically justified to encourage individuals to take part in vaccination programmes when there is no, or only a small, personal benefit, but significant benefits for others. However, consent is essential, and there should be careful assessments of the benefits to be gained for the population and the possible harm that may result for the people who receive the vaccination. (p 60)
4.56 Control of Infectious disease (p 70)
4.58 Issues raised by quarantine and isolation (p 72)
4.63 Use of vaccines in control of infectious diseases
[this sentence is quite revealing: "the likely global scale of the disease would lead to demand for pandemic vaccines that is likely to far exceed their supply." They had to market, push, incentivize, implore, mandate them, they had to artificially create demand. Had the virus been dangerous the demand would've exceeded the supply. Revealing.] (p 73)
4.69 The importance of information in the case of an epidemic or pandemic
Downplaying the risk of the disease may lead to higher rates of infection. By contrast, a campaign that overstates the risks may lead to panic and lack of trust in healthcare professionals in the longer term.
[And a framework of] prior public debate to explore the ethical, professional and practical implications of an influenza pandemic, condition public expectations and ensure that decisions are made in an inclusive and transparent way."(p 76)
The entire 225 pages is basically a masturbatory exercise in how enlightened and ethical they are for giving voice to individual liberty, balanced with collective public health needs. Oddly, always siding with totalitarianism when down to brass tacks. They give lots of wiggle room in their words to allow for it under ethical guidelines, not meant to be firm barricades protecting individual liberty, or even consent. Suggested. But negotiable. Ethics!! As written by well-meaning totalitarians.
Bioethics aren't just about pandemics and vaccines. They involve things like Newgenics, CRSPR technology, designer babies, and biotechnological advances like AI and transhumanism that outpace ethical deliberation and law. Bioethics involve distasteful subjects like sterilization and euthanasia. Canadian ethics now saying that euthanasia for the poor, depressed and homeless is...ethical!!
Buck v. Bell, American Eugenics, and the Bad Man Test:
Putting Limits on Newgenics in the 21st Century
Minnesota Journal on Law and Inequality, January, 2020
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1622&context=lawineq
(p 128-132)
"It is important to note that in eugenics’ earlier heyday in the 1920s and 1930s, the movement was still clearly based on pseudoscience. Should large-scale coercive or systematic programs be attempted again in the future—maybe under a different name, or under the guise of predicting, preventing, or curing disease—they could be carried out with a level of scientific precision of which our 20th century predecessors only dreamed.
Numerous authors have addressed the ethical issues surrounding “newgenic” practices, and, similar to bioethicist Julie Aultman, encouraged “collective moral deliberation” to address the challenges they present: “[t]o avoid unjust eugenomic practices that discriminate, segregate, disrespect and avoid issues of confidentiality and privacy, subjecting persons to unfair and intolerable treatment, we need to understand which moral principles ought to guide our decisions and actions.”
However, as Aultman points out, typically “ethics lags behind” science, and “this division creates obstacles for serious moral deliberation and critical developments in policy-making involving the social and economic implications of genetic research and technology.”
Maybe we will find that there is too much profit, speed, and power in genomics to keep everyone focused on ethics and morals once someone discovers the secrets to turning humans into non human species or supermen, creating alien life, achieving immortality, or wiping out entire populations with a single genetic tweak, for example."
[Note: Buck v. Bell, eugenics "three generations of imbeciles is enough" SCOTUS 8-1 ruling survives as constitutional law in the US today, upheld as recently as 2003. Weakened by Skinner v Oklahoma in 1942, but the US eugenics law that the Nazi's raised as defense at Nuremberg remains largely constitutional in 2023. Our bioethicists say it's Ethical!!]
Why is Canada euthanising the poor?
UK Spectator, April 30, 2022
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanising-the-poor-/
Our bioethicists say it's Ethical!!
Bioethics. Negotiable. Flexible. Political. It's happened before. This read will be of the history of a horror. Take what you will from it that you may recognize around us less than a century later. What you may recognize seeing during the height of the pandemic, some still lingering. Ethicists of the time said it was all Ethical!!
Useless Eaters: Disability as Genocidal Marker in Nazi Germany
Catholic Culture, 2002
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7019
Second, because many of those with disabilities were now more visible through outpatient programs, their infirmities and their sometimes inappropriate or undesirable behavior were often considered a threat to public decency and social order. Accordingly, inappropriate public behavior by people with disabilities was often dealt with in terms of legal action and through the criminal justice system, thus melding disability and criminality in the public mind. Professional and public debate had raised the imperative of social control to prevent the proliferation of asylum inmates, including those with disabilities, whose characteristic behaviors were now firmly perceived to be at best undesirable and at worst criminal.
...
It was at this point that the seeds of genocide were sown among professionals and ordinary German citizens alike. The juxtaposition of severe economic constraints, crowded asylums, the attachment of levels of economic viability to human worth, and the sense that people with disabilities formed a burdensome and often criminal element in society all significantly added fuel to ethical debates concerning euthanasia and sterilization. By the late 1930s, there was open discussion among many asylum administrators about actually killing inmates.
...
However, in the 1890s the meaning of euthanasia in Europe, and especially in Germany, came to include two other aspects. First, the notion of a voluntary "right to die" was extended to mean that in some instances the request for euthanasia could be made by persons other than the suffering patient. Second, the extraordinary levels of care accorded the terminally ill and asylum inmates again raised the issue of negative human worth and underlined the possibility of involuntary euthanasia
...
The distinction between voluntary euthanasia and involuntary killing was thus effectively eradicated, and an ominous term was coined for the first time: "life unworthy of life."
...
By the early 20th century, scientists had amassed a great deal of pseudodata portending to show differences between individuals, genders, and ethnic groups by rank ordering any population trait from superior to inferior.
...
In addition, levels of socially appropriate behavior (law-abiding, self-regulating, restrained, and conformist) were judged superior to socially inappropriate behavior (criminality or antisocial behavior. These and other classifications soon precipitated both informal social changes and more formal legal measures.
...
Second, an offshoot of Darwinism, Social Darwinism, held that not only biological traits but also social characteristics and their resultant behaviors were genetically determined. Social Darwinism's ideas of difference, therefore, in the form of eugenics, appeared to have immediate and effective application for a number of societal problems, such as "hereditary" social traits (e.g., socially inappropriate or criminal behavior). Here the rationale was simple: All visible traits of human difference were genetically determined. Thus, just as eye and hair color were genetically determined, so were drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and other socially inappropriate behaviors. A simple extension of these perceptions led to the idea that an effective way of controlling or eliminating these problems was by sterilization, incarceration, or death.
...
Eugenics captured the imagination of researchers in Europe, England, and the United States. In the United States, politicians purportedly promoting the public good were quick to recognize eugenics as a powerful tool for shaping public opinion against people with disabilities. Such awareness fueled laws in many states for the involuntary sterilization of people with disabilities, the most famous case perhaps being that of a Virginia woman with mental retardation. Carrie Buck, named in the 1927 landmark Buck v. Bell case
...
Thus, eugenics asserted that the "feebleminded" (a generic, inaccurate term covering everything from mental retardation to alcoholism) were almost always so because of inherited inferior characteristics. From these assumptions, they "saw the cause of the social problems of their times, such as alcoholism and prostitution, as inherited feeblemindedness, and viewed the manifestations of poverty, such as intermittent employment and chronic illness, as a hereditary degeneracy"
...
Also in 1933, the Nazis enacted the Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals, a law that further blurred the distinction between bona fide criminal behavior and inappropriate social behavior that characterized many people with disabilities. The law stipulated that these criminal asozialen (asocials) could be committed to state asylums, held in indeterminate protective custody, and, in the case of sex offenders, officially castrated
...
Hitler understood that state-sanctioned homicide would depend on other factors to severely curb public outrage until war became reality. The war, Hitler reasoned, would provide both a distraction and an excuse for officially killing those deemed undesirable. One such factor was the use of propaganda to convince the public of the desirability of some lives over others.
...
To this point, Nazi involvement with mercy killing, while implicit, appears to have been muted and uninitiated by the state. However, social perceptions of disability had been radically modified, and requests for mercy deaths were increasing and were generally viewed as more acceptable, whether conducted by individual citizens or the state. Essentially, disability was widely acknowledged to be a legitimate justification for murder.
...
Ironically, 1939 was the year designated by the Nazis as the year of "the duty to be healthy". The children's killing program was to report directly to Hitler's Chancellery through a front organization under the pseudoscientific moniker of the Committee for the Scientific Treatment of Severe, Genetically Determined Illnesses. However, this impressive title belied its function, as it was headed by Hans Hefelmann, an agricultural economist. On August 18, 1939, prior to the German invasion of Poland, which began World War II, this committee produced a secret report, disseminated to all state governments, requiring all midwives and physicians who delivered infants with obvious congenital disabilities to register these children and the nature of the disability
...
As added incentives, midwives were paid for every infant with disabilities so referred. Failure to report these cases resulted in substantial fines. This directive would also later require teachers to report these disabilities among their students in schools.
...
Information on the registered children was returned to the Reich Health Ministry in Berlin, where a panel of three professionals — physicians, psychiatrists, or a disparate array of related professionals (such as ophthalmologists) — sorted the children's records into three groups....Children in the third group, designated by a plus sign on their records, were identified for "treatment", "disinfection," "cleaning," "therapy", or "selection", all Nazi euphemisms for extermination.
...
Those designated for extermination were transferred to one of 28 facilities, among them several of Germany's oldest and most respected hospitals, where they were housed in specially designated killing wards. The Nazi authorities took great care to inform parents that their children would be safe in special wards at the clinics, which would "provide all available therapeutic interventions made possible by recent scientific discoveries". These assurances were always given with the caveat that such endeavors were also fraught with mortal risks.
There is little doubt that hospital staff were complicit in these endeavors.
...
(1/2)
(2/2)
The methods of killing at the institutions varied. In some instances, children were simply starved to death, which was not considered ideal because it took too long. However, starvation did allow these murders less chance of detection. Other methods included allowing children to die of exposure in the cold German winters by turning off all heat in the institution. At several asylums, children perished after being administered chemical warfare agents. A more grisly approach involved a method reserved for children who were resistant to other poisons or, because of their disability, were unable to swallow the poison in pill form: fatal injections directly into the heart. The most popular lethal drug was Luminal, a barbiturate, closely followed by morphine for children resistant to the Luminal. These were usually administered in pill or liquid form. The genius of this form of homicide was the normally expected availability of these medications in hospitals. Also, some poisons killed indirectly over short periods of time by precipitating fatal medical complications that were then reported as natural causes of death. There is evidence that physicians exchanged information about the efficacy of various medications when they visited each other's institutions or met at the Reich Ministry of Health in Berlin.
...
The murder of the children also followed a particular administrative and logistical course. As the condition of the child deteriorated following the fatal dose, the parents would be informed that their child was seriously ill, with a quick follow-up via a standardized letter announcing the child's death before parents could arrange to visit their sick child. This letter always noted that the child had died suddenly and unexpectedly of one of a number of diseases. Popular choices included brain edema and appendicitis. The favorite cause of death, however, proved to be communicable disease, which necessitated immediate cremation to avoid the danger of an institutional epidemic.
...
In this action, patients from several asylums were rounded up, taken to nearby woods, and individually shot in the back of the head. Between 1939 and 1944, almost 13,000 Polish psychiatric patients were killed in this way. However, in such instances, it quickly became evident that the perpetrators' close proximity to the resulting gore exacted a heavy psychological toll that could be reduced only by using less grisly methods.
The logistical necessities involved in killing large numbers of asylum inmates were also problematic within Germany itself.
...
A human experiment on the effectiveness of the gas was conducted in January 1940. A number of senior officials responsible for Aktion T-4, including many asylum directors and several others who would later make their names infamous at Auschwitz, gathered at a defunct prison near Berlin. Approximately 20 naked asylum inmates were herded into a prototypical gas chamber by psychiatric nurses. The enthusiastic onlookers watched closely as the inmates died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Eight further inmates were administered lethal injections, but when the poison had little immediate effect, these inmates were gassed as well. Buoyed by the dreadful success he had just witnessed, Viktor Brack, one of the top Aktion T-4 officials, victoriously declared the importance of using physicians to administer the gas through his oft-repeated motto: "The needle belongs in the hand of the doctor"
...
Based on the logistical experiences of killing children with disabilities, similar administrative networks for registering the adult victims and the sham system of notification of next of kin were put in place. The euphemistically named Community Foundation for the Care of Asylums was the official unit responsible for hiring the killers and building staff, acquiring the gas, and later recycling gold teeth and selling jewelry from the dead. Another sham organization, the Community Patients' Transport Service, Ltd., transported asylum inmates from other institutions to the killing centers.
...
Their identities were checked and they were closely observed by a physician, who attempted to match the size and appearance of the patient with a sham cause of death that was shortly to follow. Patients were then weighed, photographed, stamped with a number, and given a piece of cardboard with a corresponding number for retrieving their clothes later. Those who possessed gold dental work were further marked with an X on their backs. Others were also carefully marked if they were deemed appropriate for "scientific" autopsy after death. Most patients' fears were allayed by these seemingly routine medical procedures, which they had all undergone many times before.
...
Concocted causes of death included the now familiar list: communicable diseases such as meningitis, which was possible in people of all ages; pneumonia, a common cause of death secondary to other serious diseases; and cases of stroke, a favored sham diagnosis among the elderly.
...
There is little evidence that asylum directors openly opposed the killing of their patients. However, some questioned the legality of the program, and others deliberately avoided meetings that would have given them no choice but to become personally involved. Some quibbled with the accuracy and utility of the identification process. Scattered instances of delay, deliberate incompetence, and other forms of resistance also occurred. In spite of these efforts, reluctant asylum personnel were often reduced to making difficult choices of who would be taken to the killing centers and who would not.
...
The Role of Science
A major impetus for Nazi ideology was its claim of legitimacy based on the pseudoscience of Social Darwinism, which drove perceptions of difference from benign recognition to active genocide. Not only was the pseudoscientific claimed as science (i.e., as established fact, data based, and replicated over time), but it was used as an instrument of deceit to perpetrate murder. On one hand, the appeal to "science" allowed the willing German intelligentsia to be more easily convinced to support and participate in brutality masquerading as research. On the other hand, the claims of Social Darwinism fed the public's long-held distrust of those who were different, whether racially or in terms of disability
...
The enchantment of the intelligentsia with pseudoscience and the willingness of the public to seize pseudoscientific "facts" as legitimate knowledge remain problems in special education today, albeit in more benign forms. For example, the unfortunate history of facilitated communication (FC) eloquently demonstrates that fairly nonsensical ideas can be widely and enthusiastically embraced by people who should know better.
The enchantment of the intelligentsia with pseudoscience and the willingness of the public to seize pseudoscientific "facts" as legitimate knowledge remain problems in special education today, albeit in more benign forms. For example, the unfortunate history of facilitated communication (FC) eloquently demonstrates that fairly nonsensical ideas can be widely and enthusiastically embraced by people who should know better.
...
The Power of Ideas
The events described in this article demonstrate the power of ideas and their consequences in the real world. In Nazi Germany, harshly prejudicial ideas toward people with disabilities replaced other, less extreme ideas. Eugenics, for example, did not appear in and of itself sinister, but it was quickly co-opted for nefarious ends. The idea of eugenics was dangerous to people with disabilities because it propelled action with scant regard for decency and compassion. In the marketplace of ideas, eugenics was embraced largely because it served a wider prejudicial purpose, namely, to control and then rid Germany of people deemed different, inferior, and asocial. The minority who resisted were soon silenced in the tidal wave of a demand for conformity to a master race superior to all others.
...
Complicity of the Medical Professions
It is important to note that the enactment of prejudice against people with disabilities in Nazi Germany could not have succeeded without the complicity of the medical and adjunct professions. Power over life and death was placed firmly in the hands of physicians who became white-coated executioners, having long abandoned the "do no harm" clause of the Hippocratic Oath. Currently, there is evidence of the medical community's again being willing agents in hastening the deaths of people deemed not viable, including people with disabilities, through familiar methods for ending the lives of terminally ill people, such as starvation and death by thirst. Furthermore, there is evidence that "do no harm" is now viewed as a somewhat quaint throwback to a distant, less sophisticated era. For example, many physicians no longer take the Hippocratic Oath before beginning their careers, and many standard hospital treatment protocols now stipulate that staff physicians may override next-of-kin requests for patient treatment if the physician decides that treatment will likely be ineffective.
...
Propaganda
The Nazis needed a means of influencing public opinion for more active perpetration of actions already planned. Propaganda became a useful tool. Nazi propaganda was created by many leading German artists, authors, and other creative persons impressed by the Third Reich, who lent their credibility and prestige to film, literature, and other public projects. Inexpert in matters of science, but eager to be on the cutting edge of issues of the day, many high-profile celebrities willingly embraced National Socialist dogma.
Notice that in that definition of disability and undesirables, "useless eaters" included those who were non-conformists, asocial; disobedient, political opponents. Classified as mentally ill.
There's a new term in vogue amongst those self-imagined betters today known as "evidence-based reality." As in, the government's narrative. True or untrue as that may be.
Aspen Institute on Information Disorder
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/commission-on-information-disorder/
About the Commission:
"3. How government, private industry, and civil society can work together in the short term to help protect underrepresented groups, and engage disaffected populations who have lost faith in evidence-based reality"
And these are the types of people who get to say what "evidence-based reality" is:
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/commission-on-information-disorder/meet-the-commissioners/
So, if you engage in civil disobedience, oppose false government narratives about masks, jabs, elections, climate change, gender, etc. then you will be diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness. Because you've lost faith in evidence-based reality. You're dissociated from reality, e.g. insane. Maybe reeducation camps can help you with your illness? Or maybe not, and you'll be considered a useless eater.
Do we trust those in charge of saying what is and isn't ethical, bioethical today to not declare that which I describe above as unethical? Because I know I've lost faith in their ethics. And I'm informed by their recent actions, their current guidelines and plans, their lack of adherence to them. And I'm aware of the same types of people as them who've faced similar societal upheavals and master plan designs failing to uphold ethics with the humanity and caring as most all reading this would expect. I don't trust them one bit.
Ethics. Bioethics. This is where crimes against humanity happens. When the leading ethicists fail. Did I mention that Anthony Fauci's wife is the Chief Bioethicist at the National Institute of Health?
https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/05/18/fauci-wife-authors-paper-supporting-vaccine-pressure-campaigns/
https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a32715031/fauci-christine-grady-nih-covid/
cc: Peter
You Broke The World Bob.
If Not You - Solely
You And Yours Like You.
This Is Our Home.
.
Why is Washington DC so corrupt...because they all believe they will never be held accountable for massive breaches of ALL Laws and Ethics....they are protected by the far left liberal judicial system within that geographic region. If they lie, cheat and/or steal they will be rewarded by those Courts...the reason why the Dems are so mad they can not control the Supreme Court too....did I mention these same unelected folks will take our tax dollars and then cry default.
:(
Injustice and corruption are promoted, celebrated, and encouraged. :(
Seems like more people breach their code of ethics - passively or actively - than abide by it.
goes all the way up the command chain to the boards of directors.
Great work, Peter, exposing these b*stards!
Staggering that no media outlet anywhere is even discussing the 560,000 extra deaths in each of 2020, 2021 and 2022.
Beggars belief.
I agree, it’s absolutely astonishing. Where are the hero journalists? Are they truly all gone?
Real true journalism is Dead!
Sadly, I believe you’re right, Nanc.