Experimental vaccines without informed consent, manufactured in China.
If a crime is suspected, it should be investigated thoroughly and the guilty punished with the full force of the law.
Mandated Human Experimentation with Genetic Vaccine without Informed Consent
By Professor Ian Brighthope FACNEM., MD.
The development and deployment of new drugs and vaccines are critical components of modern healthcare, offering the promise of prevention and cure for diseases that afflict humanity. However, the history of medical science is punctured with instances where the rush to innovate has bypassed the ethical and safety standards necessary to protect human life. The experimentation with untested and potentially dangerous drugs or vaccines on healthy young people without their full and informed consent is not only unethical but can also be considered a crime against individual rights and public health.
The principle of informed consent is foundational to medical ethics, emphasising the right of individuals to make voluntary and informed decisions about their participation in medical research. The doctrine of informed consent ensures that participants are fully aware of the nature of the research, including its potential risks and benefits, and agree to participate without coercion. Ethical breaches occur when individuals are not adequately informed or when consent is obtained through misleading information or under duress. This not only violates personal autonomy but also undermines trust in the medical profession and research community.
Moreover, the ethical principle of "do no harm" is central to healthcare and research. Experimenting with untested drugs or vaccines including a novel genetic-based vaccine, on healthy individuals, especially young people who may not fully comprehend the long-term implications, raises serious ethical concerns. The potential for harm, including death, without clear benefits to the participants, contravenes this principle.
The negative repercussions of unethical medical experimentation extend beyond the individuals directly affected. Public confidence in vaccines, most of which have little evidence of efficacy and are inherently unsafe, and other medical interventions is crucial for the success of public health initiatives. Incidents where drugs or vaccines cause harm, particularly when due to a lack of informed consent, can lead to widespread vaccine hesitancy and refusal. This was evident in the Philippines, where the rushed deployment of the Dengvaxia dengue vaccine without adequate safety measures led to a significant drop in vaccine confidence, subsequently triggering a measles outbreak. Such events underscore the importance of ethical research practices not only for individual safety but also for the broader public health.
Legally, the failure to obtain informed consent can be considered an assault or battery, and entities involved should be held liable for damages. The informed consent doctrine holds healthcare providers accountable for ensuring that patients or research participants are fully informed about medical procedures or treatments. Legal frameworks in various jurisdictions mandate the disclosure of information relevant to the participant's decision-making process, including risks, benefits, and alternatives. When these legal obligations are not met, it constitutes a violation of the law, opening avenues for affected individuals to seek justice and compensation.
Accountability and justice for victims of unethical medical experimentation require a multifaceted approach. Firstly, regulatory bodies, if they are just, must enforce strict adherence to ethical guidelines and legal requirements for informed consent in medical research. This includes rigorous review processes by institutional review boards (IRBs) and ethics committees to ensure that all research proposals meet ethical standards.
Secondly, there must be transparency in the conduct of medical research, with results and adverse events reported early, accurately and prompt follow up. This transparency allows for the early identification of potential risks and the implementation of corrective measures.
Lastly, individuals and entities found to have violated ethical standards or legal requirements must be held accountable. This includes legal actions against companies and healthcare providers, as well as sanctions by, and in the case of the covid vaccines, of professional bodies such as the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, amongst others. Victims should have access to legal recourse to seek compensation for harm suffered.
The experimentation with untested and potentially dangerous drugs or vaccines on healthy young people without full and informed consent is a grave ethical and legal violation. It undermines public trust in medical research and can have devastating consequences for individual and public health. Ensuring accountability and justice for such actions is essential to uphold ethical standards, protect public health, and maintain confidence in medical science.
Civil liability primarily involves claims of negligence and battery in the context of administering untested drugs or vaccines without informed consent. Healthcare providers have a duty of care to their patients, which includes obtaining informed consent before administering any treatment. Failure to do so, especially with untested drugs or vaccines, can lead to negligence claims if the patient suffers harm as a result. The lack of informed consent means that patients are not adequately informed about the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the treatment, which is a breach of the healthcare provider's duty of care.
Furthermore, administering medical treatment without consent can also be considered battery, a form of non-consensual physical contact. In the medical context, battery occurs when a healthcare provider performs a procedure or administers treatment without the patient's consent or against their will. This is particularly egregious when it involves untested drugs or vaccines, as the risks are not fully known and the patient has not agreed to accept those risks.
Criminal liability may arise if the administration of an untested drug or vaccine without informed consent results in serious harm or death. This could lead to charges such as assault, battery, or even manslaughter and murder depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case. Criminal charges are more severe and carry the possibility of imprisonment, fines, and a permanent record of the offence.
Healthcare providers should also face professional disciplinary actions for administering untested drugs or vaccines without informed consent. These actions can include suspension or revocation of medical licenses, fines, and mandatory ethics training. In normal circumstances the professional bodies and regulatory agencies enforce these sanctions to maintain standards of practice and protect public health. During Covid, the regulatory bodies have failed to uphold their duty of care to the public and are equally guilty of the crimes mentioned above having enforced the mandated policies of vaccinating everyone.
The ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice underpin the requirement for informed consent. Regulatory frameworks, such as the Declaration of Helsinki and guidelines from the Australian authorities, set out specific requirements for conducting research and administering treatments, emphasising the importance of informed consent, especially in the context of clinical trials involving untested drugs or vaccines.
The legal consequences of administering an untested drug or vaccine without informed consent are significant and multifaceted, encompassing civil and criminal liabilities, as well as professional disciplinary actions. These consequences reflect the fundamental ethical and legal principles designed to protect patients and ensure that their rights to autonomy and informed decision-making are respected.
In addition to individual consequences, healthcare institutions may also face repercussions, such as increased insurance premiums, legal costs, and damage to their reputation, which can lead to a loss of patient trust and revenue.
The terrible implications of a government or governmental authority forcing its population to undergo unproven and unsafe experimental treatments without consent are multifaceted, encompassing health consequences, legal and human rights violations, erosion of public trust and compliance, and potential international condemnation. Each of these aspects contributes to a complex ethical, legal, and social landscape that can have long-lasting effects on the population involved, the government's legitimacy, and the broader international community's response.
Forcing individuals to undergo unproven and unsafe experimental treatments can lead to severe health consequences, including adverse reactions, long-term disability, and even death. The lack of proven efficacy and safety profiles for these treatments means that individuals are subjected to significant risks without any guaranteed benefit. This approach not only violates the principle of "do no harm" central to medical ethics but also can exacerbate public health crises by diverting resources away from proven interventions and undermining trust in healthcare systems. All of the above clearly demonstrated in Australia post covid.
Such actions by a government or authority constitute a clear violation of international human rights standards, including the right to health, the right to bodily autonomy, and the right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) all emphasize the importance of informed consent in medical experimentation. Forcing experimental treatments on individuals without their consent undermines these fundamental legal and ethical principles, opening the door to potential legal actions and sanctions against those responsible.
Public trust in government and its institutions plays a crucial role in the successful implementation of public health measures. When a government forces unproven treatments on its population without consent, it risks eroding this trust, which can lead to decreased compliance with public health guidelines and interventions, even those unrelated to the experimental treatments in question. This erosion of trust can hinder efforts to manage public health emergencies, such as a real pandemic, where cooperation and compliance with ethical and scientific government directives are essential.
When the design and manufacture of a treatment, such as a drug, vaccine, or medical device, is undertaken in part by a potential enemy of the country, several significant implications arise, spanning national security, public health, and international relations. These implications necessitate a careful and multifaceted approach to mitigate risks and safeguard the interests and well-being of the nation's population.
The involvement of a potential enemy state in the development of critical medical treatments introduces national security risks. There is the possibility of deliberate sabotage, where the treatment could be designed to fail or cause harm under specific conditions. Additionally, reliance on a potential adversary for critical health infrastructure or supplies can make the country vulnerable to coercion or exploitation in times of conflict or tension.
The integrity of the treatment's safety and efficacy becomes a paramount concern when a potential enemy state is involved in its development. There is a risk of compromised quality control and the introduction of vulnerabilities that could be exploited to undermine public health. For instance, if the treatment is a vaccine, concerns about its safety or effectiveness could lead to vaccine hesitancy, undermining public health efforts to control or eradicate diseases.
Engaging with a potential enemy state in the development of medical treatments and novel vaccines can have complex implications for international relations. On one hand, such collaboration could serve as a bridge for diplomatic engagement and reduce tensions. Not likely. On the other hand, it could also lead to criticism both domestically and from allied nations, particularly if the collaboration is perceived as bolstering the enemy state's legitimacy or economic standing. A fascinating situation for Australia, the US and Europe.
The involvement of a potential enemy state in the development of medical treatments raises legal and ethical questions. Issues of intellectual property rights, data security, and patient privacy become more complicated in an international context, especially when dealing with a state that may not share the same legal standards, ethical norms or human rights. Furthermore, the ethical implications of potentially providing a hostile state with access to sensitive biomedical information or technology must be carefully considered.
To address these concerns, several mitigation strategies can be employed:
Diversification of Supply Chains: Reducing reliance on any single foreign entity, especially a potential adversary, for critical medical supplies or technology is essential.
Rigorous Quality and Security Checks: Implementing stringent quality control and security measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the treatment. Costly, cumbersome and easily compromised.
International Oversight and Cooperation: Engaging with international bodies and allied nations to establish standards and oversight mechanisms that can help mitigate risks associated with international collaboration on medical treatments. Currently, one cannot trust these international bodies.
Transparency and Public Communication: Maintaining transparency about the nature and extent of collaboration with a potential enemy state and actively communicating with the public to address concerns and build trust. Transparency and inclusiveness internally in Australia were clearly absent during the covid pandemic and remain so.
The involvement of a potential enemy state in the design and manufacture of medical treatments introduces significant challenges; in the case of a novel genetic vaccine for a fabricated plandemic it could be described as government endorsed population manslaughter.
Ian Brighthope
https://jrnyquist.blog/2019/09/11/the-secret-speech-of-general-chi-haotian/
Thank you Dr Ian Brighthope. I wrote my 2022 law Honours thesis on informed consent and the NSW government response to the declared pandemic. It focused on vaccine mandates and lockdowns, together with an analysis of Kassam v Hazzard, to determine how consistent these government policies were with informed consent. Needless to say, after 16,000 words I concluded that informed consent had been undermined by external factors such as coercion and the non-disclosure of important information.