Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: New Law Could Eliminate Informed Consent for Human Experimentation with Vaccines and Meds

  1. #1
    pcgame
    Member

    New Law Could Eliminate Informed Consent for Human Experimentation with Vaccines and Meds

    Truthstream Media:
    New Law Could Eliminate Informed Consent for Human Experimentation with Vaccines and Meds



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



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    From the bill summary: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-.../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.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Suzanimal; 03-28-2017 at 05:48 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  5. #4
    What could possibly go wrong?

    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/Unethi..._United_States
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    From the bill summary: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-.../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.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Define minimal risk.

    and what "safeguards" exactly.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    From the bill summary: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-.../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".

  9. #8
    Just showing what the law says- not commenting whether it is good or not.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    LibForestPaul
    Member

    Why does the lady have a non-American accent?

  12. #10
    So an Amish guy selling cancer salve = felony but big corporations experimenting on you without your knowledge or consent = freedom. Sounds about right.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



Similar Threads

  1. Peikoff on Informed Verbal Consent for Sex
    By Unregistered in forum Guest Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-05-2015, 03:45 AM
  2. The True U.S. History of Human Medical Experimentation
    By libertyjam in forum Health Freedom
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-01-2014, 07:41 PM
  3. CIA doctors face human experimentation claims
    By disorderlyvision in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-04-2009, 07:39 AM
  4. Can your doctor give you placebo pain meds without your consent/knowledge?
    By Reason in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-09-2009, 12:01 AM
  5. Pesticides and Human Experimentation
    By Mach in forum Health Freedom
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-08-2008, 01:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •