Bioethics Be Damned

Agent: This is special agent John Kruger. He'll be handling your personal security.
Lee Cullen: My protection?
Special Agent John Kruger: New identity, relocation. I'll take you through it step by step.
Lee Cullen: What are you talking about? I'm not going anywhere!
Special Agent John Kruger: You're in an extremely high risk situation, Miss Cullen. That should have been explained to you.
--The Eraser

In another dystopian case of 1984-style censoring, big tech has eliminated discussions by the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, Dr Robert Malone, from various platforms, including discussions of mRNA vaccines from Wikipedia.

What was Malone's sin? Like other erase-ees, he questioned the actions of medical and public health orthodoxy. In particular, he has voiced concern about policies that are suppressing open disclosure and debate about the risk profiles of the CV19 vaccines. Such suppression violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research.

Because they did not undergo full evaluation in the rush to get them to market, the CV19 vaccines are still experimental products. Anyone who takes these products is a research subject. A bedrock principle of bioethics is that all test subjects must be informed of the associated risks before consenting to the treatment (i.e., 'informed consent').

Under normal conditions, participants would need to sign an informed consent form stating that they understood the risks involved. However, CV19 vaccines are being administered under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) waiver, meaning that subjects are not being required to sign informed consent forms.

But, per principles of bioethics, this does absolve trial administrators from fully communicating associated risks with prospective trial participants. When these risks are not communicated, or when processes are not put in place to collect information about possible adverse effects of a treatment and then to broadly disseminate this information to current and prospective trial participants, then this is wholly unethical.

Currently, neither informed consent, nor information collection/dissemination is being done.

Moreover, policies that entice or pressure subjects into trial participation also violate bioethical principles. For example, if a prospective clinical trial were to involve children, and participation was to be enticed by giving out free ice cream to participants, then any institutional human subjects review board (IRB) would reject that proposal. If a clinical research protocol proposed that a population within a particular geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in the study, then this proposal would also be shot down by IRBs. 

No coercion of any kind is permitted. Yet that is precisely what is going on with lotteries, college scholarships, employment, and other prizes/threats being used to motivate participation in what amounts to a worldwide clinical research trial.

Uninformed consent. Institutional pressure for participation.

Bioethics be damned.