Doctors are being forced to violate all 4 pillars of medical ethics by mandatory state-enforced compliance with this bizarre new abnormal
Doctors are being forced to violate all 4 pillars of medical ethics by mandatory state-enforced compliance with this bizarre new abnormal
Not since the Nazi war crimes have massive numbers of physicians been coerced into violating every pillar of medical ethics; supposedly this behavior was outlawed with the Nuremberg trials
I am currently working on Video no5 in my series on ReDefining Vitamin D Deficiency in Adults which will focus on Immune Defense against Infectious Diseases; see topical listing provided below for other videos on the theme of vitamin D.
During the course of constructing this new presentation, I included a few notes about “clinical decision-making” which must also include mention of some basic concepts in Medical Ethics, namely the four main pillars of Nonmalfeasance, Beneficence, Justice, Autonomy.
As I finished writing that particular page of the presentation (as you can see in the image), I realized that doctors are currently being forced to practice unethically—to violate their entrusted and supposedly sacred doctor-patient relationship—as they are being forced to comply with and endorse a medical regimen (intervention) and medical regime (political hegemony/dictatorship) that violates each and every pillar of medical ethics.
As I finished writing that particular page of the presentation (as you can see in the image), I realized that doctors are currently being forced to practice unethically—to violate their entrusted and supposedly sacred doctor-patient relationship—as they are being forced to comply with and endorse a medical regimen (intervention) and medical regime (political hegemony/dictatorship) that violates each and every pillar of medical ethics.
The newest (and first and only) global medical mandate violates every aspect of medical ethics.
not safe—violating Non-malfeasance
not beneficial—violating Beneficence
They intentionally mislead people by conflating RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION (which is what they told you about) with ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION (which they hid from the public and from regulators):
relative risk reduction = a statistical finding, eg, “95% efficacy”
absolute risk reduction = the protection against disease that you can reasonably expect in the real world, eg, “less than 1% effective”
not Just—not fairly available, and which has usurped other treatments that are less expensive, safer, more beneficial, and more widely available; BILLIONS OF DOLLARS have been allocated for a medical intervention that is not needed, not beneficial, and that same money could have easily been used for programs and interventions with much greater benefit
not consented, not respecting human dignity and personal bodily autonomy; people are being forced and coerced into using a medical intervention that they would otherwise not use.
These 4 pillars of medical ethics and clinical practice are irrefutable and have been “core knowledge” for decades
You can see these 4 pillars of medical ethics represented in a medical textbook known to nearly all USA-licensed physicians (MD and DO) because it is the single most popular book for preparation for the USMLE—United States Medical Licensing Exams.
As I said previously Jun 2021:
Now, in 2020 and 2021, we are witnessing the rabid and unbridled deployment of drug-company control of media and international politics, even when such control is destroying societies, lives, businesses and entire economies; the power and undue influence of the drug industry and its high-tech companions that seek technocratic solutions and interventions into all aspects of life is destroying human society as we know it and will continue to do so unless the population rises up, removes bribed politicians, and mandates legal restraints on the cannibalistic profit-crazed drug industry.
Disappearance of Physicians and Professors who Defend Ethics
What we are witnessing in the New Abnormal Era is the systematic disappearance and censorship of any writers, intellectuals, speakers, teachers, physicians/clinicians, and professors who stand in defense of legitimate science, medical ethics, economic analysis of lock-down policies, or risk-benefit analysis of high-profit injexxions. The professional assassination of Ethics Professor Julie Ponesse on September 7, 2021 is (at the time of this writing) the most recent example; she was eliminated from her professorship after 20 years of service for embodying the very integrity of the Ethics courses that she was hired to teach.
If we continue to allow those who speak the truth to be eliminated, such that their places in the conversation are filled by pharma sycophants and political toadies to further create an echo chamber and house of mirrors, then we are irreversibly empowering the vicious cycle of the pharma power vortex and echo chamber. Soon no other opinions will be heard—only pharma advertisements and their paid infomercials from media, politicians, and celebrity endorsements.
Postscript no1: The Nuremberg Code
“Held for the purpose of bringing Nazi war criminals to justice, the Nuremberg trials were a series of 13 trials carried out in Nuremberg, Germany, between 1945 and 1949. The defendants, who included Nazi Party officials and high-ranking military officers along with German industrialists, lawyers and doctors, were indicted on such charges as crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.” from history.com
AUTONOMY, INFORMED CONSENT: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
BENEFICIAL, NECESSITATING HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION: The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable/unobtainable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
JUSTIFIED: The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
SAFETY: The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
INCLUDE THE PHYSICIANS AND POLITICIANS IN THE SAME EXPERIMENTS: No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
RISK-TO-BENEFIT RATIO: The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
PROTECTION: Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
EXPERT QUALIFICATION: The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
AUTONOMY, POWER TO TERMINATE PARTICIPATION: During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.
TERMINATE EXPERIMENT WITH EVIDENCE OF HARM: During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
["Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10", Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.] https://history.nih.gov/display/history/Nuremberg%2BCode
Postscript no2: Videos and Essays on Vitamin D
REVIEW no1: VITAMIN D DEFICIENCY results in CHRONIC PAIN and PAIN AMPLIFICATION
REVIEW no2: Vitamin D Deficiency in Mood Disorders, Anxiety, and Depression
REVIEW no3: Vitamin D in Physiology and Medicine, Part 3: Role in Barrier Defense. Sample excerpt: Vitamin D for Strong Barrier Defenses, Prevention of Infection, and a Healthier Vagina?
Vitamin D Levels in COVID-19 Outpatients, Clinical Effect of Supplementation
Vitamin D is Safe and Beneficial against Many Types of Human Papilloma Virus Infections