Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios. What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics. With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.
Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
CLICK HERE for a German dub of this video
TRANSCRIPT
Bioethics is the study of the moral issues arising from medicine, biology and the life sciences.
At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios.
PAUL ROOT WOLPE: Imagine what’s going to happen when we have a memory pill. First of all, you don’t have to raise your hand but let’s be honest: who here’s going to take it?
MICHAEL SANDEL: I’ve read of a sport—it’s a variant of polo that is I think played in Afghanistan if I’m not mistaken—where the people ride on horses. Is it horses or camels? I don’t know which. And they use a—it’s a dead goat or something—to, I don’t know, whack the polo ball or whatever it is. Now it’s a dead—I think it’s a goat. Maybe someone knows who studies sociology about this. So it’s not that the goat is experiencing pain. It’s dead already. And yet there is something grim about that practice, wouldn’t you agree? And yet it’s not that the interests of that goat are somehow not being considered. Let’s assume it was killed painlessly before the match began.
SOURCE: The Ethical Use of Biotechnology: Debating the Science of Perfecting Humans
MOLLY CROCKETT: What if I told you that a pill could change your judgement of what is right and what is wrong. Or what if I told you that your sense of justice could depend on what you had for breakfast this morning. You’re probably thinking by now this sounds like science fiction, right?
But the bioethicists cannot be dismissed so lightly. Their ideas are being used by governments to assert control over people’s bodies and to enforce that control in increasingly nightmarish ways.
ARCHELLE GEORGIOU: Lithium is a medication that in prescription doses treats mood disorders in people with bipolar disorder or manic-depressive illness. And what these researchers found in Japan is that lithium is present in trace amounts in the normal water supply in some communities and in those communities they have a lower suicide rate. And so they’re really investigating whether trace amounts of lithium can just change the mood in a community enough to really in a positive way without having the bad effects of lithium to really affect the mood and decrease the suicide rate very interesting concept.
GATES: You’re raising tuitions at the University of California as rapidly as they [sic] can and so the access that used to be available to the middle class or whatever is just rapidly going away. That’s a trade-off society’s making because of very, very high medical costs and a lack of willingness to say, you know, “Is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient—would it be better not to lay off those 10 teachers and to make that trade off in medical cost?” But that’s called the “death panel” and you’re not supposed to have that discussion.
SOURCE: Bill Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers’ Jobs
Even a short time ago, talk about medicating the public through the water supply or enacting death panels for the elderly still seemed outlandish. But now that the world is being plunged into hysteria over the threat of pandemics and overburdened health care systems, these previously unspeakable topics are increasingly becoming part of the public debate.
What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics. With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.
This is a study of Bioethics and the New Eugenics.
You are tuned in to The Corbett Report.
On November 10, 2020, Joe Biden announced the members of a coronavirus task force that would advise his transition team on setting COVID-19-related policies for the Biden administration. That task force included Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
JOE BIDEN: So that’s why today I’ve named the COVID-19 Transition Advisory Board comprised of distinguished public health experts to help our transition team translate the Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan into action. A blueprint that we can put in place as soon as Kamala and I are sworn into office on January 20th, 2021.
SOURCE: President-elect Biden Delivers Remarks on Coronavirus Pandemic
ANCHOR: We’ve learned that a doctor from our area is on the president-elect’s task force. Eyewitness News reporter Howard Monroe picks up the story.
THOMAS FARLEY: I know he’s a very bright, capable guy and i think that’s a great choice to represent doctors in general in addressing this epidemic.
HOWARD MONROE: Philadelphia health commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley this morning on Eyewitness News. He praised president-elect Joe Biden’s transition team for picking Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to join his coronavirus task force. He is the chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
SOURCE: UPenn Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel To Serve On President-Elect Biden’s Coronavirus Task Force
That announcement meant very little to the general public, who likely only know Emanuel as a talking head on tv panel discussions or as the brother of former Obama chief of staff and ex-mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. But for those who have followed Ezekiel Emanuel’s career as a bioethicist and his history of advocating controversial reforms of the American health care system, his appointment was an ominous sign of things to come.
He has argued that the Hippocratic Oath is obsolete and that it leads to doctors believing that they should do everything they can for their patients rather than letting them die to focus on higher priorities. He has argued that people should choose to die at age 75 to spare society the burden of looking after them in old age. As a health policy advisor to the Obama administration he helped craft the Affordable Care Act, which fellow Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber admitted was only passed thanks to the stupidity of the American public.
JONATHAN GRUBER: OK? Just like the people—transparency—lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really critical to getting the thing to pass.
SOURCE: 3 Jonathan Gruber Videos: Americans “Too Stupid to Understand” Obamacare
During the course of the deliberations over Obamacare, the issue of “death panels” arose. Although the term “death panel” was immediately lampooned by government apologists in the media, the essence of the argument was one that Emanuel has long advocated: appointing a body or council to ration health care, effectively condemning those deemed unworthy of medical attention to death.
ROB MASS: When I first heard about you it was in the context of an article you wrote right around the time that the Affordable Care Act was under consideration. And the article was entitled “Principles for the Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions.” I don’t know how many of you remember there was a lot of talk at the time about [how] this new Obamacare was going to create death panels. And he wrote an article which I thought should have been required reading for the entire country about how rationing medical care—you think that that’s going to start with with the Affordable Care Act? Medical care is rationed all the time and it must be rationed. Explain that.
EZEKIEL EMANUEL: So there are two kinds of “rationing,” you might say. One is absolute scarcity leading to rationing and that’s when we don’t simply don’t have enough of something and you have to choose between people. We do that with organs for transplantation. We don’t have enough. Some people will get it, other people won’t and, tragically, people will die. Similarly if we ever have a flu pandemic—not if but when we have a flu pandemic—we’re not going to have enough vaccine, we’re not going to have enough respirators, we’re not going to have enough hospital beds. We’re just going to have to choose between people.
When the debate is framed as an impersonal imposition of economic restraint over the deployment of scarce resources, it is easy to forget the real nature of the idea that Emanuel is advocating. Excluded from these softball interviews is the implicit question of who gets to decide who is worthy of medical attention. Emanuel’s various proposals over the years, and those of his fellow bioethicists, have usually supposed that some government-appointed but somehow “independent” board of bioethicists, economists and other technocrats, should be entrusted with these life-and-death decisions.
If this idea seems familiar, it’s because it has a long and dark history that harkens back to the eugenicists who argued that only the “fittest” should be allowed to breed, and anyone deemed “unfit” by the government-appointed boards—presided over by the eugenicists—should be sterilized, or, in extreme cases, put to death.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW: [. . .] But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. Not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be evident to all of you — you must all know half a dozen people, at least—who are no use in this world. Who are more trouble than they are worth. And I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just as he might come before the income tax commissioner, and, say, every five years, or every seven years, just put him there, and say: “Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?”
SOURCE: George Bernard Shaw talking about capital punishment
This is the exact same talk of “Life Unworthy of Life” that was employed in Nazi Germany as justification for their Aktion T4 program, which resulted in over 70,000 children, senior citizens and psychiatric patients being murdered by the Nazi regime.
In 2009, author and researcher Anton Chaitkin confronted Ezekiel Emanuel about this genocidal idea.
MODERATOR: So we’ll do the same format. It’ll be three minutes and then time for questions. We’ll start with Mr. Chaitkin.
ANTON CHAITKIN: [My name is] Anton Chaitkin. I’m a historian and the history editor for Executive Intelligence Review.
President Obama has put in place a reform apparatus reviving the euthanasia of Hitler Germany in 1939 that began the genocide there. The apparatus here is to deny medical care to elderly, chronically ill and poor people and thus save, as the president says, two to three trillion dollars by taking lives considered “not worthy to be lived” as the Nazi doctors said.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and other avowed cost-cutters on this panel also lead a propaganda movement for euthanasia headquartered at the Hastings Center, of which Dr. Emanuel is a fellow. They shape public opinion and the medical profession to accept a death culture, such as the Washington state law passed in November to let physicians help kill patients whose medical care is now rapidly being withdrawn in the universal health disaster. Dr. Emmanuel’s movement for bioethics and euthanasia and this council’s purpose directly continue the eugenics movement that organized Hitler’s killing of patients and then other costly and supposedly “unworthy” people.
Dr. Emanuel wrote last October 12 that a crisis, war and financial collapse would get the frightened public to accept the program. Hitler told Dr. Brandt in 1935 that the euthanasia program would have to wait until the war began to get the public to go along. Dr. Emanuel wrote last year that the hippocratic oath should be junked; doctors should no longer just serve the needs of the patient. Hoche and Binding, the German eugenicists, exactly said the same thing to start the killing.
You on the council are drawing up the procedures to be used to deny care which will kill millions if it goes ahead in the present world crash. You think perhaps the backing of powerful men, financiers, will shield you from accountability, but you are now in the spotlight.
Disband this council and reverse the whole course of this nazi revival now.
SOURCE: Obama’s Genocidal Death Panel Warned by Tony Chaitkin
It should come as no surprise, then, that Emanuel emerged last year as the lead author of a New England Journal of Medicine article advocating for rationing COVID-19 care that was later adopted by the Canadian Medical Association. The paper, “Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19,” was written by Emanuel and a team of prominent bioethicists and discusses “the need to ration medical equipment and interventions” during a pandemic emergency.
Their recommendations include removing treatment from patients who are elderly and/or less likely to survive, as these people divert scarce medical resources from younger patients or from those with more promising prognoses. Although the authors refrain from using the term, the necessity of setting up a “death panel” to determine who should or should not receive treatment is implicit in the proposal itself.
In normal times, this would have been just another scholarly discussion of a theoretical situation. But these are not normal times. As Canadian researcher and medical writer Rosemary Frei documented at the time, the declared COVID crisis meant the paper quickly went from abstract proposal to concrete reality.
JAMES CORBETT: Let’s get back to that question about hospital care rationing, which is such an important part of this story. And it’s one of those things that when you read it at a surface level at first glance sounds reasonable enough, but the more that you look into it I think it becomes more horrifying.
And you quote, for example, specifically a March 23rd paper, “Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19,” which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, which calls for “maximizing the number of patients that survived treatment with a reasonable life expectancy.” Which, again, I would say sounds reasonable at first glance. Yes, of course we want to maximize the number of patients that survive. What’s wrong with that?
So what can you tell us about this paper and the precedent that it’s setting here.
ROSEMARY FREI: Well it’s all of a sudden changing the rules in terms of saying, “Well, the most important thing is that it’s the older people get a lower place in terms of triaging.”
And I point out in my article, also, that Canadians have a lot of experience with SARS because we had that—there were a significant number of deaths in Ontario because of it. And there were people from Toronto who had direct experience with SARS—which of course is (ostensibly, at least) a cousin with the novel coronavirus—who wrote triaging guidelines, or at least an ethical framework for how to triage during a pandemic—this was in 2006—they didn’t mention age at all. And here we are 14 years later, every single set of guidelines, including this really important New England Journal of Medicine paper say, “Well, age is an important criterion.” And this is what’s interesting.
So this paper is really important because—and also the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is the official organ, I would say, of the American Medical Association says the same thing: it’s age. So they’re all stepping in line and then the Canadian Medical Association said, “Oh, we don’t have time to put our own guidelines together so we’ll just use this one from the New England Journal of Medicine.” To me, that’s astonishing.
When I was a medical writer and journalist, I did some work helping various—one particular organization: the Canadian Thoracic Society, which does, you know, chest infections and stuff. I helped them put together guidelines. There’s a whole big set of organizations for every single specialty for creating guidelines. Yet, “Oh!
We don’t have time to put together this—” And also, I mean Canada had a lot of experience with SARS, so we had a lot of this background. Yet, “Oh, we can’t do so it!” So they gave totally—they, quote, they said we have to go with the recommendations from the New England Journal of Medicine.SOURCE: How the High Death Rate in Care Homes Was Created on Purpose
That bioethicists like Emanuel are writing papers that are changing the rules for rationing health care in the midst of a generated crisis should hardly be surprising for someone whose brother infamously remarked that you should never let a good crisis go to waste.
RAHM EMANUEL: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
But from a broader perspective, it is not at all surprising that the concept of “death panels” has been effectively smuggled in through the back door by the bioethicists.
In fact, when you start documenting the history of bioethics, you discover that this is exactly what this field of study is meant to do: Frame the debate about hot button issues so that eugenicist ideals and values can be mainstreamed in society and enacted in law. From abortion to euthanasia, there isn’t a debate in the medical field that wasn’t preceded by some bioethicist or bioethics institute preparing the public for a massive change in mores, values and laws.
That research into the history of bioethics leads one to the doorstep of the Hastings Center, a nonprofit research center that, according to its website, “was important in establishing the field of bioethics.” The founding director of the Hastings Center, Theodosius Dobzhansky, was a chairman of the American Eugenics Society from 1969 to 1975. Meanwhile, Hastings cofounder Daniel Callahan—who has admitted to relying on Rockefeller Population Council and UN Population Fund money in the early days of the center’s work—served as a director of the American Eugenics Society (rebranded as The Society for the Study of Social Biology) from 1987 to 1992.
As previous Corbett Report guest Anton Chaitkin has extensively documented, there is a line of historical continuity connecting the promotion of eugenics in America by the Rockefeller family in the early 20th century to the creation of the Hastings Center in the late 20th century. The Center, Chaitkin points out, was fostered by the Rockefeller-founded Population Council as a front for pushing the eugenics agenda—including abortion, euthanasia and the creation of death panels—under the guise of “bioethics.”
CHAITKIN: Eugenics practices that we saw and discussions and preparations for eugenics, which were going on in the United States in the early 1920s and earlier going back to the late 19th century—those discussions were carried over—and the same discussions and preparations in England—were carried over into Nazi Germany. After the war—after World War II—people who had participated in these movements wanted to keep the eugenics idea alive and with the backing of particularly the Rockefeller Foundation—which had backed Nazi eugenics before World War II in Europe—they set up a population control movement that overlapped with the Eugenics Society and with eugenics ideas. And out of that combination of eugenics and population control was born the institutes and programs which are today at the heart of what’s called “bioethics,” where you decide—so, supposedly decide—ethical questions in a medical practice based on supposedly limited resources.
So it’s a completely phony and morally disgusting field in general. It’s ill-born at the root of it and it’s a practice which has never confronted—in the medical community and in the academic community that has this as part of its, you know, its practice—they’ve never confronted the basis for the existence of this “bioethics.”
The history of bioethics connects the Rockefeller funding behind the first wave of American eugenics, the Rockefeller funding behind the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes and the Nazi-era German eugenics program, and the Rockefeller funding behind the Population Council, the Hastings Center and other centres for post-war “crypto-eugenics” research. As a result, it is perhaps not surprising to find that many of the most well-known and most controversial bioethicists working today are associated with the Hastings Center.
Take Ezekiel Emanuel himself. In addition to being a senior fellow at the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress—which was accused in a 2013 expose from The Nation of maintaining “a revolving door” with the Obama administration and running a pay-for-play operation for various industry lobbyists—Emanuel is also a Hastings Center fellow. In fact, Emanuel’s career as a bioethicist was kickstarted by a November 1996 article in The Hastings Center Report, which—after praising Daniel Callahan’s attempts to inject a debate about the goals of medicine into the discussion of health care—highlighted a point on which both liberals and communitarians can agree: “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.” For “an obvious example” of this principle in action, Emanuel then cites “not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”
Just last year, The Hastings Center hosted an online discussion about “What Values Should Guide Us” when considering COVID-19 pandemic restrictions in the United States, during which Emanuel opined that big tech was not doing enough to share data about users’ movements with governments and researchers:
EMANUEL: I have to say I’ve actually found Big Tech totally unhelpful so far in this. It’s hard for me to see that they’ve done something really, really helpful in this regard when it comes to COVID-19. They have lots of capacity. Believe me: Facebook already knows who you interact with on a regular basis; how close you’ve gotten to them; when you leave your house; which stores you go into. Google does the same. And they have not used this data. Maybe they’re afraid that people are going to be all upset, but they haven’t even been willing to give it to someone else to use in an effective manner. And I think either they’re going to become irrelevant in this process or they’re going to have to step up and actually be contributory to solving this problem.
Or take Hastings Center fellow and University of Wisconsin-Madison bioethics professor Norman Fost, who, in addition to questioning whether it is “important that organ donors be dead” in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, made the case for involuntary sterilization—the hallmark of the now universally denounced American eugenics program—at a 2013 panel discussion on “Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics.”
NORMAN FOST: On the sterilization thing, if his sexual behavior can be attenuated so that he’s not a risk of impregnating anybody that would be the best thing. But I don’t think we should rule out sterilization as being in his interest also, as well as potential victims of his sexual assault.
I think sterilization has a bad reputation in America because of the eugenic sterilization of a hundred thousand or more people with developmental disabilities, most of them inappropriate. But the overreaction to that . . . and Wisconsin leads the way at overreacting to that. We have a Supreme Court decision that says you can never sterilize a minor until the legislature gives us permission to do it and they never will and that’s not in the interest of a lot of kids with developmental disabilities for whom procreation would be a disaster—that is pregnancy or inflicting a pregnancy.
So if it’s the case that this fella is never going to be capable of being a parent . . . and I can’t tell quite that from the limited history here and it may not be the case—but I just want to say that the country’s overreaction to sterilization—like it’s wrong, it’s always terrible to involuntarily sterilized somebody—is not true and it ought to be at least on the table as something that might be in his interest.
SOURCE: A Conversation About Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics
But these discussions are not limited to the ranks of the Hastings Center.
Take Joseph Fletcher. Dubbed a pioneer in the field of biomedical ethics by both his critics and his apologists, Fletcher was the first professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia and co-founded the Program in Biology and Society there. In addition to his position as president of the Euthanasia Society of America and his work helping to establish the Planned Parenthood Federation, Fletcher was also a member of the American Eugenics Society. In a 1968 article in defense of killing babies with Down’s syndrome “or other kind[s] of idiot[s],” Fletcher wrote:
“The sanctity (what makes it precious) is not in life itself, intrinsically; it is only extrinsic and bonum per accident, ex casu – according to the situation. Compared to some things, the taking of life is a small evil and compared to some things, the loss of life is a small evil. Death is not always an enemy; it can sometimes be a friend and servant.”
Or take Peter Singer. If there is any bioethicist in the world today whose name is known to the general public it is Peter Singer, famed for his animal liberation advocacy. Less well known to the public, however, are his arguments in favor of infanticide, including the notion that there is no relevant difference between abortion and the killing of “severely disabled infants,” positions which have driven his critics to call him “Son of Fletcher.”
Although Singer is extremely careful to frame his argument for infanticide using the least controversial positions when speaking to the public. . . .
PETER SINGER: . . . So we said, “Look, the difficult decision is whether you want this infant to live or not.” That should be a decision for the parents and doctors to make on the basis of the fullest possible information about what the condition is. But once you’ve made that decision it should be permissible to make sure that the baby dies swiftly and humanely, if that’s your decision. If your decision is that it’s better that the child should not live, it should be possible to ensure that the child dies swiftly and humanely.
And so that’s what we proposed. Now, that’s been picked up by a variety of opponents, both pro-life movement people and people in the militant disability movement—which incidentally didn’t really exist at the time we first wrote about this issue. And they’ve taken us as, you know, the stalking horse—the bogeyman, if you like—because we’re up front in saying that we think this is how we should treat these infants.
SOURCE: The Case for Allowing Euthanasia of Severely Handicapped Infants
. . . his actual writings contain much bolder assertions that would be sure to shock the sensibilities of the average person if they were plainly stated. In Practical Ethics, for example, intended as a text for an introductory ethics course, Singer dispenses with arguments about severe handicaps and birth defects and talks more broadly about whether it is fundamentally immoral to kill a newborn baby, noting that “a newborn baby is not an autonomous being, capable of making choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle of respect for autonomy.”
After conceding that “It would, of course, be difficult to say at what age children begin to see themselves as distinct entities existing over time”—noting that “Even when we talk with two or three year old children it is usually very difficult to elicit any coherent conception of death”—we could provide an “ample safety margin” for such concerns by deciding that “a full legal right to life comes into force not at birth, but only a short time after birth—perhaps a month.”
Singer is by no means alone in his profession in discussing this subject. In fact, he’s just part of a long line of bioethicists musing about exactly where to draw the line when discussing infanticide.
Take Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, two bioethicists working in Australia who published a paper titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” in The Journal of Medical Ethics in 2012. In that paper, they explicitly defend the practice of infanticide on moral grounds, claiming that “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus,” and thus “the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.” Lest they be mistaken for forwarding the same old argument on killing severely handicapped newborn babies that bioethicists have been making for decades, the two are careful to add that their proposal includes “cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
Unlike so many other academic papers on this subject, however, this one was picked up and widely circulated in the popular press, with even establishment media outlets like The Guardian insisting that “Infanticide is repellent. Feeling that way doesn’t make you Glenn Beck.”
Seemingly taken aback by the strong negative reaction to a scholarly article about the moral permissibility of killing babies, the authors of the article responded by accusing the general public of being too ignorant to understand the complex arguments made in the highly academic field of bioethics:
When we decided to write this article about after-birth abortion we had no idea that our paper would raise such a heated debate.
“Why not? You should have known!” people keep on repeating everywhere on the web. The answer is very simple: the article was supposed to be read by other fellow bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments. Indeed, as Professor Savulescu explains in his editorial, this debate has been going on for 40 years.
Whatever else may be said about the researchers’ response, this was not a dishonest defense of their work. Julian Savulescu, the editor of The Journal of Medical Ethics that published the article, did point out in his own defense of the publication that the scholarly debate about when it is permissible to kill babies goes back to at least the 1960s, when Francis Crick—the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and an avowed eugenicist who proposed that governments should prevent the poor and undesirable from breeding by requiring government-issued licenses for the privilege of having a baby—proposed that children should only be allowed to live if, after birth, they are found to have met certain genetic criteria.
Indeed, the pages of the medical ethics journals are filled with just such debates. From Dan Brock’s article on “Voluntary Active Euthanasia,” published in The Hastings Center Report in 1992, to John Hardwig’s 1997 article in the pages of The Hastings Center Report asking “Is There A Duty to Die?” to Hastings Center Deputy Director Nancy Berlinger’s 2008 pronouncement that “Allowing parents to practice conscientious objection by opting out of vaccinating their children is troubling in several ways,” these ethics professors toiling in a hitherto unknown and unremarked corner of academia are having a greater and greater effect in steering the policies that literally mean the difference between life and death for people around the world.
In his prescient 1988 article on “The Return of Eugenics,” Richard J. Neuhaus observed:
Thousands of medical ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable until it is finally established as the unexceptionable. Those who pause too long to ponder troubling questions along the way are likely to be told that “the profession has already passed that point.” In truth, the profession is usually huffing and puffing to catch up with what is already being done without its moral blessing.
Indeed, bioethicists are not, generally speaking, trained doctors, researchers or medical workers. As academics, they are forced to take the word of doctors and researchers at face value. But which doctors? Whose research? Inevitably, it will be that of the WHO, the AMA and other organizations whose work—as even those within its ranks admit—is not solely dictated by medical need, but by the arbitrary whims of the organizations’ billionaire backers.
We are feeling the effects of this now, when these bioethics professors are held up as gurus who can not only provide medical advice, but actually lecture the public on which medical interventions they are morally obligated to undergo regardless of their own feelings about bodily autonomy.
*CLIP (0m35s-1m27s)
SOURCE: Emanuel: Wearing a mask should be as necessary as wearing a seatbelt
JULIAN SAVULESCU: It’s important to recognize that mandatory vaccination would not be anything new. There are many mandatory policies, other coercive policies—taxes are a form of coercion. Seatbelts were originally voluntary and they were made mandatory because they both reduce the risk of death to the wearer by 50% and also to other occupants in the car. But importantly some people do die of seat belt injuries, but the benefits vastly outweigh the risks.
Some countries in the world already have mandatory vaccination policies. In Australia the “no jab, no pay” policy involves withholding child care benefits if the child isn’t vaccinated. In Italy there are fines. And in the US children can’t attend school unless they’re vaccinated. All of these policies have increased vaccination rates and have been implementable.
SOURCE: “Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination: the arguments for and against”: Julian Savulescu & Sam Vanderslott
KERRY BOWMAN: Some form of vaccination passport is almost inevitable. With travel it’s virtually a given. And you look at countries like Israel is now introducing the green card. And all this is going on the assumption that people that have been vaccinated are not going to be able to spread the viruses easily, meaning they can’t transmit it and it’s kind of looking like my read on the science is it’s looking like that is the case with most of the vaccines. So that would be the question.
Now some people say we absolutely can’t do it, like, it’s just not fair in a democratic society because there’s people that refuse—don’t want vaccines—and there’s people that can’t have vaccines. But here’s the other side of the argument: Is it really fair to the Canadians that have been locked down for a year when they are vaccinated—they’re no longer a risk to other people—is it really fair to continue to limit their freedom?
So you’ve kind of got those two sides of it colliding.
SOURCE: ‘Vaccination passports’ a near certainty says bio-ethicist | COVID-19 in Canada
From its inception, the field of bioethics has taken its moral cue from the card-carrying eugenicists who founded its core institutions. For these academicians of the eugenics philosophy, the key moral questions raised by modern medical advances are always utilitarian in nature: What is the value that forced vaccination or compulsory sterilization brings to a community? Will putting lithium in the water supply lead to a happier society? Does a family’s relief at killing their newborn baby outweigh that baby’s momentary discomfort as it is murdered?
Implicit in this line of thinking are all of the embedded assumptions about what defines “value” and “happiness” and “relief” and how these abstract ideas are measured and compared. The fundamental utilitarian assumption that the individual’s worth can or should be measured against some arbitrarily defined collective good, meanwhile, is rarely (if ever) considered.
The average person, however—largely unaware that these types of questions are even being asked (let alone answered) by bioethics professors in obscure academic journals—may literally perish for their lack of knowledge about these discussions.
All things being equal, these types of ideas would likely be treated as they always have been: as a meaningless parlor game played by ivory tower academics with no power to enforce their crazy ideas. All things, however, are not equal.
Perhaps taking a page from the notebook of his brother, Rahm, about the utility of crisis in effecting societal change, Ezekiel Emanuel declared in 2011 that “we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest.” He didn’t add “pandemic” to that list of excuses, but he didn’t have to. As the events of the past year have borne out, the public are more than willing to consider the previously unthinkable now that they have been told that there is a crisis taking place.
Forced vaccination. Immunity passports. The erection of a biosecurity state. For the first time, the eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are on the verge of gaining real power. And the public is still largely unaware of the discussions that these academics have been engaged in for decades.
At the very least, Bill Gates can relax now: We can finally have the discussion on death panels.
Ah yes, “Bioethics” appears to be Ethics reduced to a Biological reaction by a group of A-moral monsters making Moral Standards for the rest of us. These soulless creatures clearly have no idea of what it means to be human and thus have no knowledge of what they claim to be doing.
Hell, it’s like Bill Gates ramming his “Common Core” through Public Schools when he has no Teaching experience, eh!
It is no wonder that these guys want to become integrated with AI. They have no soul to to lose. they are already dead, and missory loves company.
No-Consent
When you need an ‘ethics class’ to tell someone its wrong (or when its ok) to steal stuff or murder people its already too late. Lol
An excellent report thats as informative as ever. Thanks.
It reminds me of an article I read about Romans thinking young children more akin to seadlings then people. We are heading right back into that world view because humans have been reduced back to animal meatsack status in the post soul world. Roman mindset with modern tools is a pretty scary thought.
Its clear how such disgusting creatures as the ‘people’ quoted feel free to PUBLICLY suggest killing babies or anyone else they feel like- at this point they simply dont care because they consider the chance of the amoral public pushing back to be zilch.
fer67, my view is that both discussions are worth having even if there are partial conflicts. A baby cannot avoid intersecting with the hospital system so it is important to advocate for systems of clinical governance that enable them to get out of that place alive. Simultaneously, advocacy is required to ensure that medical treatments received during the life cycle are in the best interests of the patient and the sanctity of human life.
fer67,
I couldn’t have said it better.
“The real corrupt power is in the legal fiction of the corporation, allowing executives to make decisions with lethal consequences while suffering nothing for it. We need accountability again, we need to deal a death blow to the corporation.”
End the Fed, and the Corporations that grew up around it will die as well.
The first place we need accountability is government. Corporations do not pass laws and regulations, their minions in government do. As long as people do not hold their representative accountable for what they do, nothing will change. Just look at the ever shrinking benefit (for us) of the COVID relief bill; no one is up in arm against that. Mostly they argue about a meaningless $15 minimum wage.
10:20 “… of Executive Intelligence Review” or EIR or LaRouche
I would question everything that he says triple
and would refuse all his supposed quotes until seen/heard the original.
in other words: Non-credible source or source I personally would outright dismiss and either not include at all or only include if I could provide proof directly additionally that all his quotes and allegations are correct.
this is based on a couple of magazines I read by EIR/fidelio/larouchepub/schillerinstitute and it was full of drivel mixed in with some correct quotes and facts but much too much distortion
edit: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public
Just wondering what is going on with BitChute? The link above goes to area code 404.
I also notice other creators seem to have their videos hit BitChute last, if at all, but a few months ago everything there would hit at the same time as everywhere else.
They have probably seen quite a surge in new users/creators during the recent purges which may have presented more challenges to funding.
Somehow I’m more trusting of services that can’t accommodate for a lot more users over night.
James they have been medicating us through the water supply for decades. Fluoride has been added since the 50’s.
I understand where you are coming from and on the one hand the pollution and stress and other chemicals does damage people and contribute to poor health that creates the need for health care in the first place.
On the other hand once you get to that point of poor health regardless of the cause there are some western medicine therapy that actually helps and can be used to supplement naturopathic medicine.
Prior to much of the pollution and poor diet there were things that naturopathic medicine couldn’t treat. There are some genetic diseases cystic fibrosis for example that can’t be treated with naturopathic medicine alone.
Also western medicine for treatment of traumatic injuries is pretty incredible and can be life saving. Emergency medicine for treatment of strokes and heart attacks is similarly beneficial. Ideally multiple modalities can exist side by side to complement each other. The Rockefeller influence and manipulation by pharma and bioethics and crony capitalism has tarnished the good.
Nevertheless I think throwing the baby out with the bath water is a mistake. I have been one of the unlucky ones to need western therapies during the course of my life and was glad I had the option. I also use naturopathic medicine as well and am in good health. But I am glad I have the option to go to the hospital if I needed to if I got hit by a car or something.
I may have already shared this on TCR, but here it is again or for the first time:
Dr. David James Carswell, my father, died of “COVID”.
https://SaidIt.net/s/CriticalThoughts/comments/7f6v/dr_david_james_carswell_my_father_died_of_covid/
Jason,
Thanks so much for writing that piece.
As always, my best wishes to ya fella.
I should mention one aspect of how I really appreciated your communication… that what you wrote helped to drive home the fact that we have a community here at TCR.
It contributes to “community”.
No matter what it is called Bioethics or Eugenics, I don’t agree to any of this. No one has the right to choose who should live or die. Let’s be honest, half the worlds health and birth defects, would not be here without all the toxic chemicals and pharmaceutical products that the so called “elite” produced in the first place.
Anyone with a jot of sense should know the killing would not stop at the sick and disabled.
“..Anyone with a jot of sense should know the killing would not stop at the sick and disabled….”
Start with the unborn…then the just born and they work up from there.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129580-200-the-world-needs-to-talk-about-child-euthanasia/
I would say the center topic here is: nobody has the right to declare who should live or die. You seem to have latched on more to the part regarding medication (where you make some quite good points) but there is the all pervasive talk of euthanasia where someone will take charge of declaring people unworthy of life.
mkey thank you for summing up the obvious point.
This video in particular outrages me. My little brother is developmentally disabled. He has also taught me more than any other POSSIBLE source about life, joy, loss, gratitude and unconditional love. He has been a great blessing to anyone who knows him.
The fact that these subhumans would certainly deem him not worthy of existing, is terrifying, infuriating and deeply personal.
James, thank you, once again, for your deep delve into information, agendas and facts that we all need to know.
The information presented is interesting but I would rather see a wider discussion on the life/death/health issue than a piece against Bioethics or Eugenics, since its arguments tend to come down to the usual team A vs Team B.
While someone can think that a “Death Panel” is a wrong thing, we forget that there is such thing as the “Life at Every Cost Panel” who pushes medical procedures way beyond what it is necessary. I had the unfortunate experience to be around nursing homes and elderly care facilities for many years while caring for a relative and there is no doubt in my mind that many people in those places would rather be dead than living like they are. I saw no life or dignity in them, just an heartbeat and breathing supported by endless series of medications. I made my decision: I would never be in that situation if I can avoid it.
From a freedom loving prospective, I believe that everyone is the owner of his own life and can do what he wants with it, even end it. The problem is that we might not be in the condition to make that decision ourselves. We can choose not to cure our cancer, but what if we are in a coma unable to speak? Living wills and similar document are a step toward taking the decision in a person’s hands but, at the end, the real decision is always made by someone else. Being it a doctors panel, family, or trustees, someone else is making the decision to pull the plug. How this decision is made is the real issue here. What kind values are used to make that judgement?
Eugenic is a despicable practice because tries to impose rules chosen by an elite on other people, but that doesn’t mean that some of the issues they rise do have merit. Old age it is not always the happy portrait we see in the drugs commercials. It often is a miserable non-living stretched for as long as the body can tolerate.
I agree with points raised “life at any cost” and have seen this despicable practice in hospitals ie violating DNRs and keeping people “alive “ with no possible recovery to maximize profits. This causes unnecessary suffering and waste.
The Jahi McMath case of the brain dead girl that was kept “alive “ for years beyond brain death. I have taken care of people in this state and their flesh was rotting off and there was no animation left in the body yet they were kept in this state of existence. Most of the time it was the family who couldn’t let go but it was still wrong. It’s wrong to prolong suffering with no hope of meaningful recovery.
I think this is a more complex issue than it first appears on the surface. I was talking to a nurse a few days ago, at an anti-lockdown protest gathering which she is fully in support of. When I mentioned the recent case in the UK of people with learning difficulties who have covid having “do not resuscitate” notices on their beds, she surprised me by saying it was a very complex issue that had been badly reported in the press.
Health workers have to make very difficult life and death decisions in situations that would horrify most of us. These issues do need to be discussed, and it should be done by people who fully understand the issues involved, not in a demagoguic circus atmosphere where people can be swayed by propaganda. And with strict protective limits, so that these issues cannot be used by eugenicists to be turned into slippery slopes, whereby unproductive people are disposed of for the collective convenience.
Liverpool care pathway was basically murder of old people by starvation.. they promised to stop murdering old people so it was all good…. I am not sure if an apology would suffice were we to drug and starve a person to death…I think that would be some kind of crime or something…but we are not medical professionals.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23698071
“…Her granddaughters, Helen Bishop and Alison English, say the LCP was used as a justification for sedating Mrs Vine and denying her food and water.
“Nan didn’t want to die, it wouldn’t even have been euthanasia. So, as far as we’re concerned, it would have felt to us as if our Nan would have been starved to death and killed,” Alison said.
Mrs Vine was taken to hospital with a dislocated shoulder, and a few days after being admitted she developed pneumonia.
“All I remember is they weren’t feeding me. Up above my bed they put ‘nil by mouth’ and I was begging for food,” she recalled.
She said that when she asked doctors and nurses for food, she was ignored……”
Got to love that free healthcare
Just imagine how much of that stuff was going on among the elderly in covid hospitals with family kept forcefully at bay.
I just lost an old friend to a surprise UTI… his sister had not been able to see him in the last 6 months of his life because of the restrictions on hospital visits.
Who knows what could be going on in those places? Its like a horror movie plot.
Triage already exists and is in daily use, and it is uncontroversial that medical care gets refused to people with poor chances.
Consider Janet – an emotionally damaged woman (from being raped as a child) who had 6 children but was unable to look after them properly. Two things happened – social services forced her to sign away 4 of her children, and she was told she had to have a hysterectomy because of a cervical smear. People sat in judgement and condemned her, yet a support group formed around her that supported that family and took the load off social services, but because that support group was “unqualified” it was trashed. Lies were told and she was coerced into signing away her last 2 children. She went to an early grave.
Then there were the Downs Syndrome women at a Lancashire UK hospital who even post-2000 were being repeatedly made pregnant by the psychiatrists, and sent in for abortions.
Basically the informally practiced eugenics scene is bad enough without formalizing some system of mandatory sterilizations or euthanasia.
The issue is that while doctors have always made hard calls when you legalize and formalize things they start going crazy… like in the UK’s liverpool care pathway when bonuses started to be linked to putting down sufficient numbers of oldsters.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23698071
I was just thinking the same – eugenics for billionaires. That would change things up a bit!
The Agenda(s) are clear and moving forward…
Reason, Logic, Facts, Real Science, Liberty, Autonomy, Alternative Health Protocols, even “Sars-CoV-2 isolation” & virus existence discussions…
…these are all moot points in thwarting the Agendas.
“The Powers That Should Not Be” will never change their goals and intentions because of good sense and sane thinking.
2020 proved that.
There is not doubt that a Eugenics agenda is the intention of many.
In Bioethics and the New Eugenics, James Corbett’s ending stood out for me.
“…Ezekiel Emanuel declared in 2011 that “we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest.” He didn’t add “pandemic” to that list of excuses, but he didn’t have to. As the events of the past year have borne out, the public are more than willing to consider the previously unthinkable now that they have been told that there is a crisis taking place.
Forced vaccination. Immunity passports. The erection of a biosecurity state. For the first time, the eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are on the verge of gaining real power. And the public is still largely unaware of the discussions that these academics have been engaged in for decades.
At the very least, Bill Gates can relax now: We can finally have the discussion on death panels.”
And there’s this segment
“…Emanuel opined that big tech was not doing enough to share data about users’ movements with governments and researchers….”
My take-away is that it becomes very evident as to the direction the system is headed. It’s a freight train.
Voting or Facts or Logic or Alternative Health Protocols or Exposing Virus Fraud or whatever ain’t gonna stop the freight train. They are moot points against the train.
Corbett Report Member chefjs highlighted a 30 second video Public Service Announcement by
Oregon Public Health Division
Thank you, Oregonians, for keeping social visits outside. Despite the inconvenience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIx_M97oQzg
So, if anyone thinks they will stop this freight train after watching that 30 seconds… …then they didn’t vote hard enough, or use enough logic and reason, or their Scientific Facts were not peer reviewed enough.
No, the freight train agendas of the system will continue.
Solutions.
Solutions for living are gonna be the way forward for those of us who want to avoid the jab of this nightmare system.
Passio claimed something to the effect of “the universe hates cowards”. At first I didn’t understand what that would actually mean, but the picture is clearing up quite a bit.
Hank says:
Have I become happier after ingesting so much shocking material? No.
So far I felt only rage, anger, hopelessness and depression.
So the question remains: what is the point of knowing? …
You got me guy.
Hell, I don’t know.
But I am curious. I have interest.
Perhaps “being interested in matters of substance” is a barometer of being alive, of being human, along with mankind’s spirituality.
A rock isn’t interested in anything.
A normie might only be interested in shallow topics in a shallow way. (e.g. Celebrity gossip or what stuff gives their image a ‘cool look’ on social media.)
I will say that I am very disappointed in the general population and their responses to the events of 2020. I did not expect such an obediently large crowd.
Hank, What’s your take?
what is the point of knowing? …
Hank and Remedy, I think it’s instinctual and we can’t help but feel threatened, the threat is real and it’s now on our doorstep.
It’s painful and dreadful at times to know, but it’s worth it when I have conversations with people who fully get it. Those who are going along with the narrative surely aren’t able to reach that level of closeness with another person, how can they have a satisfying conversation together, it would be like, oh I hope it’s over soon, did you hear the cases are…. yes those conspiracy theorists are spoiling it for the rest, I’m so glad of the vaccine…can I get that mask pattern I’m going to sew everybody masks for Christmas this year.. isn’t that a good idea.
Maybe we know so it makes us change how we live and find a door into another world, which is truly awesome.
Species are destined to grow in numbers, especially if there is enough resources. That’s why it’s hard to understand why some of us want less people around. It goes against nature. Unless they are considering themselves as another species, then that would make sense.
Peripatêtikos says:
James’ “Big Oil” docs are to be rewatched annually.
2017
How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
Corbett was soooo ahead of the curve!
When a person watches “Why Big Oil Conquered the World” they find out about Eugenics and Climate Change and a whole host of Technocratic agendas.
This is so very timely to 2020 and 2021.
Bioethics is an oxymoron.
Let’s be honest with ourselves.
In today’s context we are not talking about ‘bio’ as in general biology.
We are referring to modern experimental mRNA injections, genetic manipulation, GMO’s and a host of other immoral acts on humans and animals.
In that context ‘bio’ becomes bio-technocracy.
And so bioethics is in fact an oxymoron.
There’s nothing ethical about what they are doing or planning to do
with their bio-technocracy.
My genes, your genes, we scream Eugene. Humans have been slaves most of their history. Liberty is a fragile flower. And yet, and yet…. just watched the first two parts of the Treblinka Revolt on the WWII Mark, oh I forget, channel. Do names even matter anymore? Where’s my number, oh right. Already have one.
The Jews being exterminated at Treblinka still resisted.
And yet we always seem to end up in camps.
The Eugenics folks can dream of their genetic utopia, but God created us, not them.
My genes, your genes, we scream Eugene.
Timmy,
Nice play of words against an era long past.
When I was young in the early 50’s, my Grandfather & Grandmother taught me those lines: “I scream. You scream. We all scream for ice cream.”
My Grandfather told me the stories of how when he was young at the farm, his Dad would load the family of 12 into the wagon out in rural Okarche, OK on a late Saturday afternoon. The kids would sing the song as they made their way to general store.
For my brother and I at our Grandparents’ place, ice cream was a special treat.
Freezer space on their refrigerator…
The “Freezer” portion of the frig was slightly larger than a half-gallon box of ice cream. I remember watching my Grandmother struggle to fit it in. The frost build-up around the freezer portion was thick.
(IMAGE – Freezer portion is the middle, upper “box” which was always open.)
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/vintage-1940s-gm-frigidaire-1922963431
Better to let nature sort out who survives… the worst thing about the elites is that they encourage harmful , DISGENIC behavior then want to fix a problem that they created.
The elites are mostly inferior inbreds who are trying to weaken their competition and rig the game so their own bad genes can flourish
The illusion of evidence-based medicine – POTP E13
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KcuXFzkw4Wcd/
As much of the world rushes to receive a lightly-tested pharmaceutical product, we thought it was high time to look again at the (very) big business of medicine. Leemon McHenry, PhD, guides us to the fraudulent core of ghostwritten studies, captured legislators, revolving-door regulatory agencies, pay-to-play medical journals, and the “key opinion leaders” who lend their academic credentials to giant corporations…for a price.
With every stage in the process seemingly structured for corruption, we can only wonder along with Professor McHenry: “Who’s looking out for scientific integrity?”
Explains how the medical companies are controlling all
the science publications. Like via Ghostwriting and funding.
It shows the immense corruption in the medical science.
(Would be a great person for an interview)
Leemon McHenry is a bioethicist and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Northridge, in the United States.
2020 – “The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine: Exposing the Crisis of Credibility in Clinical Research”, Leemon McHenry & Jon Jureidini, Adelaide: Wakefield Press.
Wikipedia
In medical ethics he has focused attention on scientific integrity in clinical research. He has criticized the corporate takeover of medicine and the corrupting influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medicine.
This includes dubious claims about chemical imbalance as a marketing ploy for selling antidepressants, direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals, industry-sponsored clinical research, and ghostwriting for medical journals.
As an example of the latter, he has written articles about GlaxoSmithKline’s study 329 on paroxetine and teenagers, and asked that the ghostwritten article about the trial results be retracted by the journal that published it in 2001.
In a broader realm, he has argued that the industry-academic partnerships have worsened university research, created increased opportunities for scientific misconduct, and failed to protect academic freedom.
This work falls within a new area of inquiry, agnotology, understood as the study of willful acts to spread confusion and deceit.
His new book with co-author, Jon Jureidini, is “The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agnotology DEFINITION
Agnotology is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.
Agnotology is the study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win favour.
It comes from agnosis, the neoclassical Greek word for ignorance or ‘not knowing’, and ontology, the branch of metaphysics which deals with the nature of being.
One trick they usually employ for dismissing any ethical concern about some new policy is to claim that it is not a novelty. By claiming that several things are already mandatory in the “public interest” and that including a new mandatory “vaccine” is only marginal and does not present any new ethical challenge.
How non-reactionary people are when it comes to new invasion of their rights. It should be just the opposite, all those other things are a violation of our rights and therefore must be abolished, in particular, mandatory seatbelts, the most idiotic law in existence.
BUMP
BUMP (well worth reading)
“Some Comments on The Contagion Myth”
QUOTING the very last phrase of the article
“…in the search for a balanced and nuanced understanding of infectious disease and the current pandemic.”
Can you point out an example of Kaufman’s childish behavior in that video? Thanks.
You really think it was Kaufman who reacted “unexpected”?
But watch this, he made a reaction video with Dr Cowan on this little drama with Dr Judy Mikovits:
https://lbry.tv/@DrAndrewKaufman:f/Judy–Tom-C-1-28-21-edited-compressed1:6
I’m pretty sure it is an imaginary virus (masqueraded sometimes as a common cold or flu or whatever), but that there’s also a bioweapon virus… they’re not necessarily mutually exclusive. Bioweapon virus is probably pretty deadly but not remotely infectious, and breaks down easily in open air. Great for unleashing massacre within limited, targeted geographies – and fear and hysteria all around the rest of the world… Plus benefits for ensuring messy, incoherent data, coercing political/govt leaders with the bioterror threat AND scientific fraud to boot!
Idk, it just looks a lot more like an “and” than an “or” situation to me, and makes sense that our sweet sweet hybrid warlord-technocrats would put more effort into effectively confusing the premise of the thing than toward the rest of the plan
Here is what I did…
Months back, I watched a lot of Bio-Tech webinars (the folks involved with the vaccines). I logged the important ones on a SUB-THREAD to keep them linked and more fully explained.
SUB-THREAD – m-RNA Vaccine Evolution & Predictable AutoImmune Disease
https://www.corbettreport.com/futurevaccines/#comment-101369
A couple videos which gives a person insight into how they make the vaccines…
~~ Slide show presentation of the Covid-19 Vaccine Development by NAID | NIH (Fauci’s area)
and
December 21, 2020 ~~Modeling of the Virus to create Synthetic Structures for Vaccines and other
For me, this last “bold” video underscores that…
The m-RNA vaccines are created from computer generated genomic modeling of an image, not directly from a purified, isolated (secluded or solitary) virus that they grabbed off of a patient and put on a plate.
As far as contagion of disease by a virus…
I’m going by past experiences and observations.
Example:
“My Personal Genital Herpes Virus Story”
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1619-whitney-webb-on-the-oxford-astrazeneca-eugenics-links/#comment-105148
If someone is absolutely sold on the concept that a ‘virus’ (or some entity) is not transmissible, they should try to get bitten by a rabid bat or rabid dog and make a YouTube video…which would go viral. Pun intended.
I agree HRS. I’ve had personal experience with herpes too. I got it from someone else. I also have two friends previously healthy young guys get HIV from sexual contact. They know who they got it from. I was a kid in the 1980s and my mom had several gay friends who got HIV and then developed AIDS. It was a new phenomenon. People didn’t get this disease in the 60s.
I remember taking care of a patient with severe nausea and vomiting and later that night about 4am I woke up sick as a dog with identical symptoms. I got sick more often my first year working in the ER especially when I was working with sick kids. After that though my immune system is amazing. I rarely get sick.
My point is that viruses and prions (mad cow) for that matter make sense as being a component of disease development. It’s not the entire explanation and terrain matters too. I think both theories make sense to explain infectious diseases.
When talking about the capacity for mutation, which is great…
The virus changes a lot, but that’s not a problem for developing “vaccines” because the virus did noz change that much. The same is “valid” for “vaccine” efficacy.
The virus changes a lot, to an extent so extreme that it becomes incredibly more fatal. So it changes sufficiently to kill like a Clinton but not sufficiently to make “vaccines” useless.
Classic doublethink.
BTW, whatever transmitts herpes, I’m rather sure it is not lumps of lifeless protein.
mkey says:
BTW, whatever transmits herpes, I’m rather sure it is not lumps of lifeless protein.
You may have a good point. The ‘official line’ is that the Herpes virus will “hibernate” (hide) until the body/mind/immune system becomes stressed and weakened.
“lumps of lifeless protein” with an objective (with a goal, an intention) to hijack cellular mechanisms and to proliferate always seemed odd to me, even 50 years ago. It’s like a programmed piece of quartz for a living biological system…it’s like a blend of water and oil which don’t mix…so very odd.
As far as being a “virus anatomy-function expert”, I ain’t gonna spend 10 years deciphering everything. I don’t care what they call the phenomena of ‘virus’.
But “contagion” is real to me. In fact, I believe that contagion (exposure) is what makes individuals and also populations healthy towards their future survival.
Regardless, there are many “anti-viral” remedies which show efficacy.
Lysine, Elderberry, Oscillococcinum, a variety of herbs and nutrients,
…and recently with Covid we have seen the anti-parasite approaches of hydroxycloroquine, ivermectin, wormwood, etc.
Also, there were remedies which focused on the respiratory tract for virals (e.g. zinc, ionophores, budesonide, nebulizing diluted H2O2/salt).
Effective with Covid were the oxidative therapies like Vitamin C, ozone and ultraviolet light blood therapy. These oxidative therapies have a record of alleviating other viruses, including Ebola, herpes and HIV.
I no longer have Herpes, or at least have not had symptoms in decades. I attribute it to the sauna detox…just baking the shit out of foreign substances in my body. After all, fevers are a natural body defense mechanism.
I have a hypothesis that anti-parasite approaches to better health are not emphasized enough. Everyone has parasites.
I’ve used them in garden applications (parasitic ant nematodes).
IVERMECTIN discovered in 1975
I watched this months ago. It is fascinating.
William C. Campbell delivers his Nobel Lecture
Ivermectin: A Reflection on Simplicity
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/campbell/lecture/
(NOTE: There is the part where Campbell, with a light tint of sarcasm, shows how chemists took a natural substance and chemically altered it for something patent-able.)
HRS
Thanks for the link to ivermectin. I want to have some on hand. I know zinc, echinacea and vitamin C have always shortened the duration of respiratory infections for me.
I also want to complement you on your knowledge of naturopathic medicine. I think you could have a thriving health coaching business.
IVERMECTIN
The other day on the phone, my buddy Joe told me that he had ordered some Ivermectin online weeks ago. Even Amazon has it. I didn’t realize it was so easily available. I am going to order some to have it on hand (and to experiment with).
Ivermectin might be smart to have in light of…
Geert Vanden Bossche, Phd DVM –
World Expert Warns of Coming Covid Vaccine Disaster
https://www.corbettreport.com/march-open-thread/#comment-105835
Per my daughter-in-law, whose brother is a Doctor in the far south Texas Valley area that does tele-medicine often prescribing Ivermectin, sourced some of his Ivermectin from Veterinarian supply places.
In the William C Campbell presentation on Ivermectin, you will see Abamectin / Ivermectin.
“About 15 years ago, in the backyard of my past home, I had a big problem with Fire Ants. The little dogs were constantly getting hit by these vicious fast movers. I’m all organic and so would try natural things like a mix of orange oil & molasses. I still could not get all the many ant hills under control.
Finally, I contacted a professional natural pesticide guy and we discussed options. He put out a spread of small bait granules containing Abamectin. It worked great! Within a week or so, it was hard to find any fire ants.”
https://www.corbettreport.com/summer-2020-open-thread/#comment-88846
At the above mentioned link is also this 2016 study…
Discovery of Berberine, Abamectin and Ivermectin as Antivirals Against Chikungunya and Other Alphaviruses
Berberine is a chemical found in several plants including European barberry, goldenseal, goldthread, greater celandine, Oregon grape, phellodendron, and tree turmeric.
Goldenseal and Oregon Grape root are very commonly taken as antiviral herbs.
I think that genetics and individual immune response/state of health and age all affect transmission.
The Jonson and Johnson ‘vaccine’ uses an adenovirus to inject foreign DNA into our cells making mRNA then making the spike protein. I think that it can do that in people who aren’t immune to the adenovirus to begin with.
That’s creepy and I think that’s precisely what that virus does.
This is a dire warning that needs to get out. As Dr. Coleman says below, we can’t reach millions without help. As with so many other doctors speaking out, Dr. Vernon Coleman is also being banned.
COVID-19 VACCINES ARE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION – AND COULD WIPE OUT THE HUMAN RACE DR VERNON COLE (21 minutes)
https://lbry.tv/@keyholejourney:7/Covid-19-Vaccines-Are-Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction—and-Could-Wipe-out-the-Human-Race-Dr-Vernon-Cole:1
In this video we learn what Dr. Vernon Coleman thinks about Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s report – see video: INTERVIEW WITH GEERT VANDEN BOSSCHE (DEL BIGTREE) – EXPLOSIVE – VACCINE RISK TO HUMANITY https://lbry.tv/@keyholejourney:7/Interview-with-Geert-Vanden-Bossche-(Del-Bigtree)—EXPLOSIVE—Vaccine-RISK-to-HUMANITY:9
Dr. Coleman adds his point of view on Dr. Bossche’s crucial report. He opens his video with this, “If you’ve been watching my videos for a while, you’ll know that I never exaggerate. You’ll also know that for the last year my predictions, assessments and interpretations have been absolutely accurate. Now, more than ever, I need your help. Unless we work together, we are doomed. I need your help because we need to reach millions with this video. And with the big platforms and mainstream media having banned me, I can’t reach those millions without you.”
Original video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/b51E2b9YkgAD/
Dr Coleman says this is the most crucial video he’s ever made about covid-19. Please share this video widely.
For further unbiased information about other important matters, please visit https://www.vernoncoleman.com and https://vernoncoleman.org/
Twilightzone S2E29 The Obsolete Man
Available on dailymotion. Very much non-PC. I was kind of hoping they’ll rip the guy to shreds in the end.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ywhne
Can you immagine something like this running along the standard TV programming nowadays?
I wonder if we would have to ration health care if they didn’t artificially limit the supply of doctors?
Tell us more.
I see why you’d be thinking that, but considering the fact that cultist of death are leading this donkey and pony show, a dead patient and a wasted heart is a win-win in their book.