Someone add Fauci to the page and then quickly take an archive.is image.
This list should be your response to anyone saying, "You should always trust the SCIENCE!!, Take the jab!!"
But this is in the past. We do it differently now and everything is ethical and we live in the best of all possible worlds.
"Best of intentions." "The very highest of ethical standards."
Die anyway.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - C. S. Lewis
They don't seem to understand that human nature has not changed. And the fact that we have better technology now than we did in the past also means it's easier to promulgate bad science. It's easier to lie, obfuscate and mislead because the science is opaque and inaccessible to the average person, and even to trained scientists outside the field.
A quick scan of those experiments seems to show that most were conducted on children. How evil do you have to be to think that is a good and moral thing to do. But I'm sure today's scientists are much more ethical and only have your best interest in mind.
I would be fine if they were all conducted on black Children
Well, then it wouldn't be human experimentation anymore.
Yeah but how would that be applicable to humans?
I believe that would be referred to as the animal testing phase. It's what you do before you go to human trials.
In 1963, 22 elderly patients at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in Brooklyn, New York City were injected with live cancer cells by Chester M. Southam
I can't seem to find much on this, but based on the fact that nothing happened to him I assume he was injecting goy victims.
How do you even justify that as research. An hypothetical example would be injecting patients with heavy metals and see what happens. O wait, that's not hypothetical, that's what they do with vaccines.
Any link between these experiments, esp the radiation and chemical testing, and prevalence of cancer?
I have plenty of relatives and non related friends in Hanford WA that grew up downwind of the nuclear plant at that time with weird rare blood disorders and other random issues. Lots of clotting related issues, some cancers, skin issues, early onset neurological issues. They mostly all lived until very old ages anyways, probably because they're farmers that only eat what they grow or slaughter. The surviving ones who were alive during that time are heartily healthy people to this day. But something was going on in that population, it was pretty clear looking at them as a group and hearing them discuss their rare diseases.
Is this when the "supposed" "do no harm" oath came in that 80% of medical laughs at?
Don't worry, that all definitely most certainly stopped after the Cold War.
It's almost as if they are doing it again!
Some things never change.
(post is archived)