PDA

View Full Version : New Law Could Eliminate Informed Consent for Human Experimentation with Vaccines and Meds




pcgame
03-27-2017, 07:40 AM
Truthstream Media:
New Law Could Eliminate Informed Consent for Human Experimentation with Vaccines and Meds


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHe_wG_qMeU


Support us on Patreon, read our goals here! https://www.patreon.com/truthstreammedia

Zippyjuan
03-27-2017, 01:52 PM
From the bill summary: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34


(Sec. 3024) Clinical testing of investigational medical devices and drugs no longer requires the informed consent of the subjects if the testing poses no more than minimal risk to the subjects and includes safeguards.

Suzanimal
03-28-2017, 05:44 AM
From the bill summary: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34

It doesn't matter if it poses any risk. It's a violation.

And who's going to decided how much risk you should take? I'm fairly certain they're not planning on reimbursing you for your risk OR making it right if you end up being .00001% who reacts badly. Unfrickinbelievable.

Edited to add: I hope you're not defending this, Zippy.

Suzanimal
03-28-2017, 05:53 AM
What could possibly go wrong?:confused:

Just a small sampling that we know of...imagine all the one's that never came to light.


Nonconsensual tests[edit]

From 1942 to 1944, the U.S. Chemical Warfare Service conducted experiments which exposed thousands of U.S. military personnel to mustard gas, in order to test the effectiveness of gas masks and protective clothing.[97][98][99][100]

From 1950 through 1953, the U.S. Army sprayed chemicals over six cities in the United States and Canada, in order to test dispersal patterns of chemical weapons. Army records stated that the chemicals which were sprayed on the city of Winnipeg, Canada, included zinc cadmium sulfide, which was not thought to be harmful.[101] A 1997 study by the US National Research Council found that it was sprayed at levels so low as not to be harmful; it said that people were normally exposed to higher levels in urban environments.

To test whether or not sulfuric acid, which is used in making molasses, was harmful as a food additive, the Louisiana State Board of Health commissioned a study to feed "Negro prisoners" nothing but molasses for five weeks. One report stated that prisoners didn't "object to submitting themselves to the test, because it would not do any good if they did."[14]

A 1953 article in the medical/scientific journal Clinical Science[102] described a medical experiment in which researchers intentionally blistered the skin on the abdomens of 41 children, who ranged in age from 8 to 14, using cantharide. The study was performed to determine how severely the substance injures/irritates the skin of children. After the studies, the children's blistered skin was removed with scissors and swabbed with peroxide.[85]

Operation Top Hat[edit]

In June 1953 the United States Army formally adopted guidelines regarding the use of human subjects in chemical, biological, or radiological testing and research, where authorization from the Secretary of the Army was now required for all research projects involving human subjects. Under the guidelines, seven research projects involving chemical weapons and human subjects were submitted by the Chemical Corps for Secretary of the Army approval in August 1953. One project involved vesicants, one involved phosgene, and five were experiments which involved nerve agents; all seven were approved.[103][104]
The guidelines, however, left a loophole; they did not define what types of experiments and tests required such approval from the Secretary. Operation Top Hat was among the numerous projects not submitted for approval. It was termed a "local field exercise"[103] by the Army and took place from September 15–19, 1953 at the Army Chemical School at Fort McClellan, Alabama. The experiments used Chemical Corps personnel to test decontamination methods for biological and chemical weapons, including sulfur mustard and nerve agents. The personnel were deliberately exposed to these contaminants, were not volunteers, and were not informed of the tests. In a 1975 Pentagon Inspector General's report, the military maintained that Operation Top Hat was not subject to the guidelines requiring approval because it was a line of duty exercise in the Chemical Corps.[103][104]

Holmesburg program[edit]

Chloracne resulting from exposure to dioxins, such as those that Albert Kligman injected into prisoners at the Holmesburg Prison
From approximately 1951 to 1974, the Holmesburg Prison in Pennsylvania was the site of extensive dermatological research operations, using prisoners as subjects. Led by Dr. Albert M. Kligman of the University of Pennsylvania, the studies were performed on behalf of Dow Chemical Company, the U.S. Army, and Johnson & Johnson.[105][106][107] In one of the studies, for which Dow Chemical paid Kligman $10,000, Kligman injected dioxin — a highly toxic, carcinogenic compound found in Agent Orange, which Dow was manufacturing for use in Vietnam at the time — into 70 prisoners (most of them black). The prisoners developed severe lesions which went untreated for seven months.[12] Dow Chemical wanted to study the health effects of dioxin and other herbicides, and how they affect human skin, because workers at their chemical plants were developing chloracne. In the study, Kligman applied roughly the same amount of dioxin as that to which Dow employees were being exposed. In 1980 and 1981, some of the people who were used in this study sued Professor Kligman for a variety of health problems, including lupus and psychological damage.[108]

Kligman later continued his dioxin studies, increasing the dosage of dioxin he applied to the skin of 10 prisoners to 7,500 micrograms of dioxin, which is 468 times the dosage that the Dow Chemical official Gerald K. Rowe had authorized him to administer. As a result, the prisoners developed inflammatory pustules and papules.[108]
The Holmesburg program paid hundreds of inmates a nominal stipend to test a wide range of cosmetic products and chemical compounds, whose health effects were unknown at the time.[109][110] Upon his arrival at Holmesberg, Kligman is claimed to have said, "All I saw before me were acres of skin ... It was like a farmer seeing a fertile field for the first time."[111] A 1964 issue of Medical News reported that 9 out of 10 prisoners at Holmesburg Prison were medical test subjects.[112] In 1967, the U.S. Army paid Kligman to apply skin-blistering chemicals to the faces and backs of inmates at Holmesburg, in Kligman's words, "to learn how the skin protects itself against chronic assault from toxic chemicals, the so-called hardening process."[108]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_Stat es

osan
03-28-2017, 07:07 PM
From the bill summary: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34




(Sec. 3024) Clinical testing of investigational medical devices and drugs no longer requires the informed consent of the subjects if the testing poses no more than minimal risk to the subjects and includes safeguards.

What a load of crap.

First of all, the degree of risk is immaterial.

Secondly, who determines "minimal"? The language you cite is utterly devoid of semantic value. It talks a lot, yet says nothing.

FAIL.

pcosmar
03-28-2017, 09:26 PM
From the bill summary: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34

Define minimal risk.

and what "safeguards" exactly.

fr33
03-28-2017, 09:50 PM
From the bill summary: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34

if the testing poses no more than minimal risk to the subjects and includes safeguards.
You don't even care about being called a shill all the time obviously. We'll have to depend upon your bosses to subjectively choose what is a "minimal risk".

Zippyjuan
03-29-2017, 06:04 PM
Just showing what the law says- not commenting whether it is good or not.

LibForestPaul
04-01-2017, 06:28 PM
Why does the lady have a non-American accent?

jmdrake
04-01-2017, 06:44 PM
So an Amish guy selling cancer salve = felony but big corporations experimenting on you without your knowledge or consent = freedom. Sounds about right.