Boiling the Bioethical Frog after Nuremberg
22 December 2020
22 December, 2020
It is the morning after the vote. Lockdown 3.0. Parliament didn’t listen to the science nor WHO, again. The tannoy in the surgery uncharacteristically crackles into life at 9am with Morrissey singing “and heaven knows I’m miserable, now.” No, it doesn’t, I mutter. Usually, the tattooed young ladies at reception kick the morning off with techno. But we really are all miserable, now. Stuck on Boris’s Gitmo awaiting our botched injections. How I long at that very moment for the carefree teenage misery of the 1980s.
The emails come in thick and fast. The MHRA-Pfizer political coup is announced. This is sickeningly well-timed and too fast to be safe. The Gates funded MHRA has granted a temporary authorisation. Our tele-consultation software provider emails within 24 hours of the announcement. It declares it has some kind of “vaccination product” to show off. It is the sort of breath-taking focus and efficiency I wished from PHE and SAGE. NHS Scotland also emails its serendipitous offering of a webinar “to support registered healthcare practitioners to safely administer the Covid-19 vaccine with confidence”. Well, how about waiting another 10 years? It announces:
Please see the attached flyer for a webinar providing training for experienced vaccinators in the delivery of the new Pfizer BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine. Our current working assumption within NHSGGC is that GP practices will be asked to vaccinate the over 80s cohort under the terms of the DES, most likely with alternative vaccines more suited to distribution to practice settings. We will write out further with details of this once logistics are clearer.
NHS Scotland doesn’t quite as sound as sure as Hancock who has a certain swagger this morning on Piers’ Breakfast Vaccine Propaganda session. Hancock jubilantly announces the beginning of the end game: vaccines in England. Where are the official webinars on the unethical, unproven and unsafe aspects of this vaccine?
Pharmaceutical oneupmanship
The psychological pressure continues to be ramped up in an anxiety-inducing horror-show of vaccine brinksmanship between Piers Morgan and Hancock. They dare each other like schoolboys to have it on TV. My pulse and blood pressure already raised by my mask rise further. Hancock says solemnly that more needy and vulnerable than he will be first. However, he says he will have it, even though he already had the disease and survived with aplomb.
This hunger games scenario of a middle-aged, potentially pre-infected and already immune health secretary taking a nominal, rushed, improperly trialled novel-technology vaccine after the pandemic has already passed on live TV is as unethical and obscene as any of the propaganda we have been subjected to. What have we become? If it happens, the supposed vaccinator, the TV station, the secretary of state, and the vaccine company should all be roundly condemned. It proves nothing and risks everything. Obnoxious and dangerous as he is, he hasn’t a clue what might happen to him. He is still that sacred thing: somebody’s patient. A power-crazed, ignorant man for whom the mantras “whatever it takes” and the “end justifies the means” are dear, offering himself for a macabre, televised ritual sacrifice fit for the Incas to appease his political masters. It is truly grotesque. There is no medical reason for him to have these chemicals.
As I previously wrote, the short-sighted worst-case political scenario for Hancock’s career is not to have a vaccine ready before the usual winter mortality spike. At worst, the risk of a vaccinate-now strategy is significant numbers die discernibly from the vaccine. However, as with the smokescreen surrounding his other hapless crusades such as ventilator contests, Nightingale hospitals, PPE fiascos, track and trace, lockdown, no masks, then facial coverings; and mass, indiscriminate flawed PCR testing, he’ll be able to bury the bad news in something else, or within the expected winter death spike of the elderly. Particularly since they are conveniently prioritising vaccinating the over-eighties this winter. How could anyone prove otherwise against this relentless government machine?
Are you going to bet on this blundering individual to get a vaccine strategy correct, or even admit when he is wrong, and change his view? The serious adverse reactions have already begun. He is dangerous. He has embarked on an all or nothing strategy. There are no signs he nor his nominal boss can stop themselves. Yet, the GMC are already sure these are “wonderful” vaccines. Has GMC Chair, Dr. Marx reviewed all the evidence or even simply scanned the BMJ, recently? If Hancock can be foolhardy enough to say he will have it, might we all be intelligent enough to say, no thank you, please?
As long as Hancock and his lackeys’ propaganda can remain one step ahead of each emerging contrary fact, and if we remain obedient and amnesic, he could abuse us forever. Does Hancock really know what he is doing? Medical educators are keen on reminding learner doctors that it’s what you don’t know you don’t know that’s most dangerous to a patient. Doesn’t he realise that even the best and most thoroughly tested vaccines can have very dangerous and fatal adverse reactions? This is not a game. These are people’s lives he is politicking with. Medicine is a very serious business, yet Hancock appears from his words and actions strongly not to comprehend this simple notion. He simply will not be stopped from his chosen path.
The dark triad
There is more to worry with Hancock’s stunted, limited and erratic emotional repertoire. Each time I see him perform I am more concerned. He spoke of the death of his close relative, step-grandfather Derek, his voice momentarily flickered with the intonation of a man about to cry, and then he carried on as if it never happened. He thumped the lectern with aggression. Not one microbe would be left standing under his watch. Not one 83 year old left unvaccinated and without a DNAR order. A zero tears, zero Covid, zero care stratagem of health. A cold, mechanical rôle shuffle between victim, persecutor and rescuer. A skilled performance from a man who has proved himself to be superhumanly impervious to logic, science and criticism. Was he really about to crack? I doubt it very much. As it happens, his was not a true representation of the family situation but lies are what we expect from him. Such is Hancock’s reality-distortion field, it would be unsurprising to discover a copy of The Secret, or Steve Job’s autobiography on his bedside table.
Does it behove a professional man in his high office of ultimate healthcare to time his momentary emotion to public perfection? No. Doctors are specifically trained to not do this. It is a professional lapse and inappropriately brings the doctor emotionally close to the patient, so that their decisions might both be clouded by the doctor’s emotion. It can have ugly therapeutic consequences. A person who can so deftly cycle through the classic drama triangle of victim, persecutor and rescuer concerns me. I have written already about sociopaths in government but combine that with this triangle and his occupational Machiavellianism makes his diagnosis approach the dark triad.
A kingdom for a vaccine
As if to confirm my working psychiatric diagnosis, he again lets rip with his roaming microbial crocodile tear in front of his emotions handler, Piers Morgan. Contrast this with the heartfelt, professionally-delivered advice of a myriad of world doctors from the WDA. ITV televised the live evidence of Hancock’s future international trial for crimes against humanity. Patient Zero: William Shakespeare. The perfect tragedy was complete. A kingdom for a vaccine. Our Health Führer could not expunge one teardrop in his defence.
Has anyone in the world even isolated the novel virus, and proven it caused this apparent novel illness before they isolated Mr Shakespeare for a televised unethical experiment of a novel, unproven vaccine technology? He looked overjoyed at all the attention being lavished. How many years will this octogenarian gain or lose with this jab? Nobody knows. Our bard is expendable. How was he consented? It would be unsurprising if he has a Do Not Resuscitate order to counterbalance his vaccine consent. Who is his GP? Where is the legion of human rights lawyers and adult safeguarders to protect him? Where are the police to grapple this grandparent out of the way? It is ethically sickening. There are laws to prevent this but they are not being utilised. Anything goes with this government’s say-so. Medics the world over will be weeping tears of blood. Hancock and his government have broken every important medical, scientific and human right norm imaginable and he cannot even properly weep.
It’s a Wonderful Life
A few days later, GMC Chair Dr. Marx emails another one of those dreaded regulator diktats from a parallel universe where rushed vaccines, government disarray and bad science are impossibilities. She has changed her Churchillian rhetoric for an all-time Christmas favourite: It’s a Wonderful Vaccine. How could she go wrong with that? Dr Marx writes:
For once in this long year there is hope on the horizon. The wonderful news of the vaccines means there is a chance for all of the above. As the vaccination rollout gets underway, many of you will be stepping forward again, to help deliver this huge endeavour. Whether we’re involved directly or not, we all have a role to play. This is a moment for us all to show professional leadership. We have a profound responsibility to our patients, our colleagues and our communities. What we say and do really matters. At a moment when our profession has never been more valued, we must lead by example. Our ethical hub offers some answers to the questions you may have around coronavirus and vaccinations.
We all have a role to play? Shakespeare, again. Her “ethical hub” seems to me a chilling, unethical, head-in-the-sand exercise. It is clear from it my medical career may be limited to tele-medicine or finished. But I will not over-ride my vehement opposition to this vaccine insanity. I am not taking one for her team. That is professional leadership by example: patient choice, individual autonomy, and informed consent, I am a model of UN bioethical standards. Marx can make her own mind up. Just as I wouldn’t force her not to have it, no-one should coerce me into having it, giving it nor promoting it. We must co-exist as best we can, not encourage the abuse of each other. Where is the equality and diversity in that? This is an unnecessary vaccine with menaces attached, and I will not stand for it. It will simply further distil the profession into a clot of one-track, de-professionalised, obedient automatons. Maybe I’ll retrain in homeopathy.
How does one deal with the many patients who are terrified at the coercion being aggressively insinuated by mainstream media televising the granny-grappling police state, Hancock and Piers taunting each other with the vaccine and Bill Gates smirking constantly down the lens like a decrepit, genetic-recombination of Dr. Doogie Howser with a Chucky doll? Why does Gates hold so much sway in profound bioethical and medical matters involving every country in the world? He was not on my medical school syllabus. Why won’t our Royal Colleges, our regulator, our government, or the WHO challenge this fake medic or the current government policy which hurts and damages so many? Can eugenicists who speak of the exceptional twenty-fold return on vaccine investments really be vaccine philanthropists?
The vaccine problem
I have a call from an irate pensioner. “Doc, I had the flu jab 3 weeks ago and I still got flu. I don’t understand.” Did he have a fever? No. Was he unwell? Not really, he had cold symptoms. So, clinically this is not flu. He is disappointed, he was expecting a cure for the common cold coronavirus. What he doesn’t know is we have never had a safe, viable human coronavirus vaccine. The legendary UK common cold unit tried for over 40 years for a cure before it shut down in failure. What he probably doesn’t know is his recent vaccine may not work against this year’s flu. It’s a 40 per cent effective, best-guess concoction of different flu strains.
What he and much of the medical profession won’t appreciate is that there is a possibility his flu vaccine increases susceptibility to endemic coronaviruses through a phenomenon called VDVI, Vaccine Derived Virus Interference. There is no evidence for VDVI as yet involving the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Clearly, giving flu and Covid vaccines serially or together is not a simple decision to be made without full testing.
His is the first presentation of cold symptoms I have come across this winter. I wonder when we emerge from our silos and begin sharing the germs we naturally co-exist with, indeed with which we have good, essentially life-supporting biological relationships, what the immunological consequences will be. Spreading it about by intermingling is not a bad globalist policy in the long run. The Spanish-Aztec smallpox epidemic tells us this.
An interesting question is why the very elderly appear so vulnerable to Covid-19 compared with flu. Being in a modern industrialised nation seems a risk factor for whatever reason. Is it population crowding? Could it be that in Europe and North America the sunlight-deprived, vitamin D deficient, frail elderly interned in care homes who are year on year encouraged to have the latest flu jab have a special vulnerability?
Make haste, make waste
When the rushed-out vaccine is announced, I’m concerned. Turns out it’s only temporarily authorised, unlicensed, inadequately safety-tested, and has storage issues. Thankfully for some, there’s not enough to go around. So, over 80-year olds will have first dibs. They can be my guest. Everything I have read tells me that the human experimentation and research will only commence in earnest with this roll out. It’s unethical.
There are myriad mechanisms related to vaccine-induced, and natural infection-induced reactions that could adversely impact vaccine effectiveness and safety such as viral interference, pathogenic priming, antibody dependent enhancement, anaphylaxis, adjuvant toxicity, and chronic autoimmune disease, etc. So concerned are the MHRA about the Covid vaccine’s “expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs)” it has commissioned a 1.5 million pounds AI software tool to process them.
For a government to propagandise that the solution to a pandemic already passed is to expect a quick fix vaccine is unprecedented. With swine flu the quick unnecessary fix was wasting money on anti-viral medicines. Vaccines are realistic for serious, widespread endemic infectious diseases. A novel vaccine for a transient (they usually are) viral pandemic delivered in under 9 months is an insane proposition, and no solution. We are in danger of becoming a global vaccine economy. This is a game the government is sure to lose but not before it has damaged our collective security, health, economy and society. Professor Doshi argues very reasonably in the BMJ that the research trials tell us nothing very convincing about the usefulness of the Pfizer vaccine. The omission of full animal testing and truncation of trials from the usual 10-15 years to eight months tell us nothing convincing about the safety. The government, by its incompetence and censorship, is to blame for vaccine hesitancy. We are not cattle to be prodded unnecessarily into a sheep dip, so why do they act like we are?
There have been some extraordinarily impactful vaccines for the greater good. In recent times the horror of a young life being taken away or destroyed by bacterial meningitis or epiglottitis became a rarity because of vaccines during my 10 years spent in acute medicine. I have probably had more vaccines than most having worked in medicine (hepatitis B mandatory) in West Africa (yellow fever mandatory) and India (TB). I have become concerned at the proliferation in number of immunisations on offer. In 1986 the US CDC’s childhood vaccines schedule included 24 doses of seven vaccines, in 2019 it had 72 doses of 16 vaccines. Add now to that a Covid-19 vaccine. At the same time, childhood chronic illness has increased from 12.8 per cent to 54 per cent.
Vaccines are big business. With Covid, the regulation of them became even less stringent overnight, and the legal liability near-nil. So now, vaccines are an even better business proposition for pharmaceutical companies than standard medicines. The market is far bigger – no need to be unwell. If you become unwell, take another patented pharmaceutical. If you present it to governments as a money-saving philanthropic panacea, there’s no need to spend on advertising. The government will do it for you, they may even assist by forcing the whole population to have it. If you are lucky enough to have a suitably marketed pandemic, the market is eight billion.
Burying bad vaccine news
Why be vaccinated? Well, I am not sure sometimes the logic is any better than taking a physically dangerous low-cost insurance policy for a low-risk issue. This was illustrated six years ago when a family member asked if her new-born baby should have a vaccine to avoid simple rotavirus diarrhoea. My reply was, “I don’t believe you, why would that be necessary? Is it worth the risks? What are the risks?” Why not just accept the fact that children get these things and are usually ok? Bad, untreated rotavirus diarrhoea can sometimes kill, but is easily treated with simple support and sometimes hospital admission. There’s more to the rotavirus Rotashield vaccine. It (along with Pandemrix) is mired in controversy since 2013 when the WHO indulged in a systematic reclassification of Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) such as narcolepsy and intussusception to effectively cover them up.
Never have vaccines been under such scrutiny and I welcome it. I have never felt comfortable with casual attitudes to them. Neither have I felt at ease with the impunity afforded to vaccine manufacturers. I abhor the extraordinary machine which operates to attack and destroy any form of criticism or concern about them. Doctors’ lives have been destroyed for daring. The open global public scrutiny of Covid-19 despite the continued censorship of an open, honest medical and scientific discussion represents a unique opportunity to change all of that for the greater good. Although it is clear the government and Pharma are not willing.
The immune system is unfathomably complex. Tinkering with one part of it can have multiple unintended consequences. We may never discover even what they are. How many auto-immune diseases are a consequence of vaccines? How many diseases are auto immune? No one knows. Under no circumstances should vaccination be done lightly. I am sure Hancock has no useful comprehension of anything medical he parrots, least of all this. Anyone contemplating rushing into indiscriminate mass vaccination for a relatively non-fatal condition better have a very exceptional medical reason for doing so. I am not sure there is one.
What I am sure of is simple, evidenced support measures for the immune system such as eating well, being happy, exercise and sunlight exposure work. Vitamin D, C and Zinc work and do no harm. Sharing microbes promotes good, broad immunity. How many people have had a cold this year? All the people I’ve asked say not. There have been a very sensible points raised about pre-existing and cross-immunity. Simple cold viruses are coronaviruses, too. There are very similar materially to their more dangerous, mutant sibling SARS-CoV-2. Denying humans the chance to recharge their immune system against the cold virus may deny a population in lockdown cross-immunity to Covid.
Drs. Wodarg and Yeadon make an important point on page five of their petition concerning the risk of infertility with the Covid vaccines that remains to be investigated. One of the spike protein components of this coronavirus has a resemblance to a protein (Syncytin-1) relied upon by the placenta for its proper development. This is for the fascinating reason that Syncytin-1 is part of the humankind’s genomic inheritance from ancient viruses known as Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERV). If one vaccinates against this spike protein component, how may we be sure it doesn’t attack human placenta and lead to vaccination against fertility? In Hancock’s misplaced desperation to meet a performance outcome and tick a box on his Excel spreadsheet, with no animal trial for this complication who can say what will happen until he criminally mass vaccinates everyone, including children who have no risk of fatality, but every risk of future infertility?
Are we in effect being held to ransom? On our elected government’s ransom note it says, “take a vaccine for your freedom”. Really? Cede individual sovereignty and regain liberty does not sit comfortably with me. There cannot be a trade on such fundamental principles. The government may take the view of the population concerning vaccines that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I take the same view of politicians. They agonise over vaccine hesitancy and give us vaccine psychosis. They believe propaganda, censorship and demonstrations of police brutality on grannies might nudge us into the vaccine pen.
Boiling the bioethical frog
How does one do this? Raise the temperature slowly. Before the frog knows it, it’s dead. So goes the totalitarian tiptoe. 1659 hrs, 3 December 2020, Vaccine Day. Twitter temporarily censors Dr. Mike Yeadon’s retweet of Article 6 of UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR). This is evil at work. His sentiment proves naïve, it is alienable and it is pushed aside. Alienated in rather the same way as humankind now floats atop mother earth as if an extra-terrestrial astronaut with CO2 retaining headgear. The whole declaration, fellow humans, is worth reading because your government and the GMC seem rather unaware of its critical place at this major fault-line in history.
These officials will say the violations are justifiable on public health grounds, but with every day that passes this public health whip with which we are daily flagellated seems ever more disproportionate, futile, unnecessary and catastrophic to the public health.
It is curious that the benevolent globalists who devised these noble rights now appear uncomfortable with our knowledge of them. That is the concern. This knowledge could be removed permanently from our sights at the flick of a globalist’s wrist. It must be a thorn in the side of the WHO and WEF globalist pandemo-philes. It makes every sense for compulsory vaccinators to broadside and censor it.
Informed consent
This brings me to the issue of informed consent to vaccination. How does one conduct this with each patient? A doctor isn’t even involved in the vaccination process these days aside from rubber-stamping it. Nurses do the honours, and our attitudes are blasé to vaccines. It’s fine, it’s good, carry on. But this millennium governments, Pharma and private individuals are de-medicalising, hyper-normalising and devolving vaccination more and more. Adult and child vaccination is not currently mandatory in the UK. Denmark was moving to a mandatory and forced vaccine law, with treatment “assisted” by the police. This was overturned by mass protest, but coercive elements may still persist, causing severe limitation, and effectively lead to an unvaccinated underclass in the country. There seem to be other ways around opposition to vaccination.
Our government is proposing lay “vaccine volunteers” and US states are increasingly lowering the age of vaccine consent and even parental knowledge of it to 11 years of age. The UK already has the children’s self-consent to treatment legal standard of Gillick competency. You might soon send your child to school in the morning only to perhaps discover on their return home they have received multiple vaccines without parental permission from an ignorant vaccine volunteer or an obedient member of the military. These are difficult decisions for grown adults to make, not to mention for a medic to consent for. A very recent case involving puberty-blocking medications and clinical consent in child gender dysphoria is highly germane to issues of consent for complex, experimental treatment in children up to 18 years of age. The WHO has its own view on childhood consent to vaccines.
These eager layperson vaccinators, divorced from bioethics, may possess mindsets which will happily and uncritically perform a dangerous task, without due responsibility, nor informed consent. If they are military personnel, they may themselves be inherently predisposed obediently to accept multiple vaccinations before entering a theatre of war to lose their lives, kill others, only to complain bitterly (if they survive) post-haste of something like Gulf War syndrome.
The recent obstetric case of informed consent for a procedure, Montgomery has redefined the standard for consent to treatment away from the paternalistic doctor in favour of the autonomous patient. Substantial uncommon risks, benefits and alternatives should all be discussed with a patient before they can properly consent. The casual medical patriarchy is no longer acceptable. The government blocks all legal recourse to sue or prosecute Pfizer. Would the usual clinical negligence route be affected? If doctors are not vaccinating, Montgomery may likely not apply.
Does the unlicensed nature of the Pfizer vaccine make a difference? No, it seems probably not on the government’s analysis, except in limited scenarios. Individuals can receive limited compensation for vaccination complications in America via vaccine courts, but they cannot hold state indemnified Pharma liable. What will be the situation in the UK? The UK has a limited and problematic Vaccine Damage Payment scheme under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 but Covid-19 vaccines are not on the list at present, but it appears are included in legislation of 2 December. Qualification requires severe disability (60 per cent disability or more). Where there is zero liability and only limited compensation for a rushed, unsafe, inadequately tested and inefficacious vaccine, and particularly given the narrow risk group and emerging infection-fatality rate WHO data (under 70s may have half the risk of flu), how can anyone of sound mind accept the vaccine except through fear, coercion and force?
The principle of informed consent occupies an essential position in the following international codes: Nuremberg Code (1947) and Declaration of Helsinki (1964). The UDBHR (2005) is an evolution from those.
Nuremberg Trials 75th Anniversary
November marked the anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials from where the Nuremberg Code came. It is worth recalling this, now. The birth of bioethical law is because of the bitter lessons of the second World War. Now it is censored by Big Tech, or goes entirely unacknowledged by our bioethicists. The bitter irony is the authoritarian global Covid regime prevented anything but an online celebration of the bringing of these genocidal, eugenicist fascists to justice. Might some have already forgotten the lessons from the atrocities of Nazi Germany? Anyone who believes that forcing or coercing experiments or treatment on anyone is justifiable should read the accounts of these trials, particularly the doctors’ trial and think again. It is a very slippery slope. There is always a justification, or a cognitive dissonance for atrocities.
Redefining Bioethics
Now even our bioethicists remind me of the Weimar Republic. Four have made a parliamentary submission on “compulsory vaccination”. It appears as if they compare chalk and cheese and argue in conclusion for compulsory vaccination when the concrete data and conditions are right. Well, the socioeconomic conditions for a Weimar Republic seem to be optimising, so perhaps these bioethicists may achieve the academic satisfaction and future ignominy of being right. Conscientious objection in World War Covid is philosophically ruled out with rhetoric by what they refer to as “parity arguments”. Bioethical principles such as autonomy and the right to bodily self-rule are given short shrift. It is telling these four apprehended an urgency to publicly clarify and defend themselves by saying it was just a thought, the conditions for the argument do not yet completely exist, so our words do not really matter. Words do matter, as newspaper publisher Julius Streicher found when trialled and hanged for crimes against humanity.
By their “parity” method, it seems the justification of any atrocity is possible simply by drawing a flimsy parallel. An essential concern with the semantic gymnastics of these authors is the lazy logic and the dehumanising tone. This is how the atrocities of Nazi Germany commenced. I am saddened when modern English bioethicists stoop this way in their contributions to society. The problem with interpreting “human rights” this way is they become human restrictions in the wrong hands and conflict with natural law.
These four are an unconscious danger to themselves and humanity. Bear in mind, mine is not an academic in vitro thought-experiment. I have to deal in vivo with the impact of the legislation they coldly quote. I regularly have the onerous responsibilities of depriving people of their liberty under section 12 of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983. It is not a game for academic credit. Their parity games are reminiscent of a symptom of psychosis, “loosening of associations”. Let me examine only their perverse “mental health parity argument”. In addressing “vaccine hesitancy” they conclude:
The law permits compulsory interference with bodily integrity under mental health law. This derogation from the common law principle of no treatment without consent is compatible with the ECHR. It is arguable that if compulsory treatment under mental health law is compatible with human rights law, so too is compulsory vaccination. Importantly, the same protected interest—that in bodily integrity—is at stake in the two contexts the mental health parity argument compares.
Luckily for humanity, “vaccine hesitancy” is not yet a mental illness. However, all it would take was a low-key redefinition in a drab WHO office, as was the case with their 2009 loosening of the definition of “pandemic”. One could better argue that, since the WHO ICD-10 defines at paragraph F52.4 premature ejaculation under the category of mental health and behavioural disorders, by parity argument, anyone with a premature urge to vaccination should be incarcerated until treatment reduces the risk to them or members of the public. These parity arguments remind me of the same rhetoric which leads to the scientific justification for men being women and for calling breastfeeding, chest-feeding. As it happens, men do have breasts and can be referred to breast clinic, so by parity argument perhaps we should now refer to chest specialists as breast specialists?
Warped rationalism like this is morally and ethically debasing, difficult to counter by decent reason, and can have disastrous consequences for humanity. Surely, the basic, intuitive wisdom says it must be wrong to force well humans to have any chemicals forced into them? Why did these bioethicists not also cite UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights as relevant international law?
These bioethicists should think more deeply about that which they propose and the logical endpoint of it. They may even consider a retraction. It would be lauded by this doctor.
Has this government by Flashman and his cabinet even admitted any fault, yet? Does anyone actually care if the vaccine is unsafe? Is it really just a case of give me any old injection ASAP so I might return to my life as I knew it? Or is it the case we will never return, because at that precise moment we will have crossed the bioethical Rubicon forever?
22 December, 2020
The Covid Physician is an unheroic NHS doctor. This article is a personal view and does not necessarily represent the views of the NHS. Dr. TCP tweets at @tcp_dr