Justifying the Unjustifiable – Bioethics
Justifying the Unjustifiable – Bioethics
Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity – 1/2/2023
We have been told to trust the experts about all things. If an expert is talking the expectation is that everyone heed their words. This is no less true for experts in bioethics. Whatever they justify, rest assured, will be done. Even when bioethics suggests a moratorium on a procedure or treatment, there are still certain individuals who will engage in the temporarily halted activities.
One such event occurred in China in 2018. A scientist by the name of He Jiankui edited the genes of twins with the intention of making them immune to AIDS. China at the time, like many other nations, have placed legal restrictions on how far this type of research is permitted to advance. Any research or experimentation conducted in vitro on a human life in the stage called embryotic was to be halted at day 14 by destroying the life. This is largely because no one really knows all of what the genes do nor the results of alterations. Jiankui ignored all of that, created at least these two children and possibly another one, and then was sent to prison for three years.
The reason as to why Jiankui’s experiment was ethically-challenged is really simple – no one knows what the alterations he made will do. Jiankui altered the CCR5 gene, associated with lower ability to contract HIV as well as memory and cognitive development. The twins may be super-smart, but the world is being kept in the dark about the admitted to gene-edited children. What can be said for sure is that the only reason there is any sort of restriction regarding human gene editing is that the outcomes are not known. As Popular Science put it in 2019:
“Since November, many researchers around the world have called the work done by the Chinese team irresponsible. That’s mainly because, from a research ethics perspective, scientists still don’t know enough about the CRISPR technology to apply it to humans just yet. There are still unresolved issues like off-target effects, in which the CRISPR technology edits genes that look like the ones they are meant to cut, but aren’t, and mosaicism, in which only part of the entire genome gets edited. Both of these deficiencies, when they accumulate, will have effects that are unpredictable to scientists. The stakes are elevated even higher when you edit germ-line cells, as the Chinese researchers did. These genetic tweaks remain for every generation that follows; so those twin babies, if they had children, would pass on the genetic alteration for CCR5.”
When researchers learn exactly what the outcomes will be through experimentation, then the ethicists will jump up and decree that ‘it is good’. As researchers, scientists, and ethicists are all making their proclamations about the ‘progression’ of ‘science’ the bioethicists will be dreaming up new justifications to make sure the new frontier in human gene-editing is properly condoned.
Gene-editing has been around for several decades. There were self-imposed restrictions on research in the field several times in the past for pretty much the same reasons as today – the researchers didn’t know what was going to happen, the safety systems recommended for the experiments were scant if they existed at all at the time, and the risks outweighed the benefits. For instance, there was a ban on inserting viral properties into a bacteria if the bacteria could infect human beings.
Gene editing was never described as difficult. Even the creators of the ethically permissible chimeras thought of their techniques as something which could be achieved by high-school students in a lab. Since the first viral chimera created under the guise of recombinant DNA, it has only become easier to do. A technology called CRSPR was developed which allows mad scientists to splice all kinds of DNA and recombine them in new ways to create chimeras. It is so easy to use that there are Do-It-Yourself manuals on the internet. The consequences of using it are likely to be lethal but using the tool successfully is relatively simple.
All of this recominant-DNA, and gene editing, and germ creation is what pharmaceutical companies and medical researchers rely on to make their billions in profit and new breakthrough discoveries in genomics. Like all technologies, these technologies can also be used for good purposes or for evil. It all depends on who holds the technology and what their intentions are. It is the bioethics community which sets the standards as to what can be done, how it is to be done, and lays out the reasoning behind what is being done.
This all leads us to today. The world has been plagued by what can only be considered biological weapons created through what is referred to as gain-of-function-research. I am saying that I absolutely believe SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab and also believe it highly probable to have been released intentionally. But, there was a ban on gain of function research from 2014 until 2017 which the National Institutes of Health, headed by Francis Collins, completely disregarded in every instance they could come up with. In 2017 Scientific American wrote about what gain of function research is, the cause of the 2014 moratorium, and how the NIH responded:
“Called gain-of-function experiments, the studies aim to understand genetic changes that can make viruses such as bird flu, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) more transmissible from person to person. But if they escaped from the lab, perhaps through human error, the modified viruses could in theory spread quickly or be extremely virulent, increasing the toll of an outbreak.
“The moratorium was imposed a few months after two mishaps at government labs, one handling anthrax and one handling avian flu, which together suggested that biosafety and biosecurity at even the most respected labs fell well short of what is needed to protect the public.
“Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said the new policy didn’t represent a significant shift, since the NIH has continued to assess and fund some gain-of-function experiments even during the moratorium. Such studies will continue to be vetted by a federal panel before they can receive funding.”
Science added to the discussion in 2017:
“Concerns over so-called "gain-of-function" (GOF) studies that make pathogens more potent or likely to spread in people erupted in 2011, when Kawaoka's team and Ron Fouchier's lab at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, announced that they had modified the H5N1 bird flu virus to enable it to spread between ferrets. Such studies could help experts prepare for pandemics, but pose risks if the souped-up pathogen escapes the lab. After a long discussion, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) decided the two studies should be published and federal officials issued new oversight rules for certain H5N1 studies.
“But U.S. officials grew uneasy after the publication of new GOF papers and several accidents in U.S. biocontainment labs. In October 2014, they announced an unprecedented "pause" on funding for 21 GOF studies of influenza, MERS, and severe acute respiratory syndrome viruses. (At the time, NIH said there were 18 paused studies.) NIH eventually exempted some studies found to pose relatively little risk. But eight influenza studies and three MERS projects remained on hold.
“NSABB then developed a set of criteria for determining when such studies should be allowed, such as whether there are less risky ways to address the same question. Last January, White House science officials told NIH's parent, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to craft policies using the criteria for what officials now call "enhanced potential pandemic pathogens" (PPPs).
“Today, along with NIH lifting the pause, HHS released its review framework. Any proposal that passes scientific peer review and fits the PPP definition will be reviewed by an HHS group with wide-ranging expertise, from biosafety and security to ethics and law. The panel will weigh the benefits and risks and may recommend that the proposed study be rejected, allowed to move forward, or permitted with modifications.”
This is ongoing. And this was all done because of ethically emboldened murderers like Collins, Fauci, and Bill Gates. It was bioethicists who placed the moratorium on gain of function research in the first place but it was the same bioethicists who allowed certain projects to continue. It was also bioethicists who, since 2017, have determined whether or not particular gain-of-function research can move forward.
The NSABB has a charter which explains its scope and objective:
“The purpose of the NSABB is to provide, as requested, advice, guidance, and recommendations regarding biosecurity oversight of dual use research, defined as biological research with legitimate scientific purpose that may be misused to pose a biologic threat to public health and/or national security. The NSABB will provide advice on and recommend specific strategies for the efficient and effective oversight of federally conducted or supported dual use biological research, taking into consideration both national security concerns and the needs of the research community to foster continued rapid progress in public health and agricultural research. Toward this end, the NSABB will also provide strategies to raise awareness of dual use issues relevant to the life science and related interdisciplinary research communities. In addition, pursuant to Section 205 of the PAHPA, when requested by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the NSABB shall also provide to relevant Federal departments and agencies, advice, guidance, or recommendations concerning (1) a core curriculum and training requirements for workers in maximum containment and biological laboratories; and (2) periodic evaluation of maximum containment biological laboratory capacity nationwide and assessments of the future need for increased laboratory capacity.”
Similarly, the NSABB released their Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens in 2017 at the end of the moratorium. The idea was that they managed to clean-up the super-pathogen creation industry with additional safeguards. Hardly. Gain-of-function research could only be carried out on potential pandemic pathogens. Vaccine creation was exempled from the framework. And the framework also contained section E:
“A pathogen previously considered by an agency to be an enhanced PPP should no longer be so considered if the HHS and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Justice, generally acting through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, jointly determine, on the basis of additional information that has been developed about the risks or the benefits of that pathogen’s creation, transfer, or use, that the department-level review processes outlined in this framework are no longer appropriate.”
Oh? So the FBI will determine what is and what is not a potential pandemic pathogen (PPP)? What crime has the FBI not committed? I cannot think of one. They’ve murdered and spied on political dissidents, covered up presidential assassinations, committed arson, murder, and evidence tampering in Waco, murdered Randy Weaver’s wife, son and dog, murdered Lavoy Finicum, and have designed and engaged in illegal drug deals, arms sales, wiretapping schemes, kidnapping plots, riots, and even the January 6 ‘insurrection’ which amounted to trespassing. I’m supposed to trust the FBI with pandemic pathogen research? Unless someone has a death wish, who in their right mind would ever trust an agency with it’s only legacy being one of abuse of power resulting in heinous loss of life, limb, and property?
I am also curious, who determines what ‘legitimate scientific purpose’ constitutes? Not me, not ever, not once. What is misuse according to the Department of Health and Human Services? I’d like to know because one of their approved chimeric lab experiments and the mitigation of the illness it causes has destroyed modern civilization. It also makes me question why in the world Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins were ever given permission to ‘study’ these viral abominations in a Chinese lab not suited to handle them. This was being done during the moratorium.
Now that we are in the post-gain-of-function research world, we have the same murderous scum concocting things like SARS-CoV-2 with 80% kill rates. And while the ‘experts’ at Boston University try to deny what they did, all they are doing is using a Fauchian approach to defining gain-of-function research. Read the article, even the coverage by the medical establishment’s whore propagandists who wrote the article up relayed that, yes, Boston University in fact did create a new pathogen which did have an 80% kill rate. But during their claims of we did nothing wrong, they did what all of these murderous assholes do, appealed to the circle jerk of other experts, “The university went on to add that the work was approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee as well as the Boston Public Health Commission.”
As soon as a bioethics board or biosafety board approves something it’s going to be done in every way so far conceived by these ‘expert’ scientists and researchers. Without the green light from the bioethics boards though, the research is hesitant as ethics breaches in the field make people really angry and rightfully so. A piece in Frontiers appeared in 2018, written by a philosopher named Nicholas Evans. He took issue with the permissiveness of the NSABB’s Framework and concluded his piece with reasonable recommendation including:
“The new GOF/PPP [Gain-Of-Function/Potential Pandemic Pathogen] principles require further interpretation to become effective governance. In this article, I have argued that principle four, “the research cannot be feasibly or efficaciously pursued through another methodology that answers the same scientific question,” is overly permissive and have suggested reform for policymakers. The debate over GOF/PPP research is surely not over, and whether these changes are ultimately incorporated is a matter for future policy work.”
He also included the reason why things like coronavirus pandemics are going to continue to occur. The bioethics boards allow these Mengele-surpassing mass murderers to get away with it by writing justifications for the unjustifiable. As Evans correctly points out in the piece:
“Advocates typically justify GOF/PPP experiments on their role in achieving some other end, e.g., developing novel vaccines or therapeutics (Schultz-Cherry et al., 2014), or enhancing disease surveillance (Casadevall et al., 2014). There is some value in GOF/PPP research for its own sake, but this is the case for any scientifically meritorious question. Moreover, the value of preventing an accidental or deliberately caused disease pandemic arguably outweighs the mere value of scientific knowledge for its own sake. Advocates of GOF/PPP don’t just leverage the instrumental value of these studies in their argument; they rely on them.
“Yet funders prioritize those ends, and thus partly determine what scientific questions can be asked; we already do what advocates of GOF/PPP research deny. Allowing similar, but not identical questions to take the place of GOF/PPP research amounts a small change in degree from existing practice. Only occasionally is GOF/PPP research a unique means to medical and public health ends (Evans, 2014); other experiments may answer different scientific questions, but still answer questions that achieve the same ends as GOF/PPP research. The GOF benefit analysis conducted during the deliberative process demonstrated that only in 9 of 24 scientific and public health goals addressed for influenza was GOF/PPP uniquely useful; this number was only 3 in 13 for coronavirus (SARS and MERS) research (Gryphon Scientific, 2016, pp. 249–254).” [italics in original]
Nancy Kass has a really long title so that people will call her an expert, “Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education and the Phoebe R. Berman Professor of Bioethics and Public Health at Johns Hopkins, where she is also both the Deputy Director for Public Health in the Berman Institute of Bioethics and Professor of Health Policy and Management in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health” These are the experts who live in bubbles, hate the public’s opinion, and give clearance to all kinds of experiments designed to ‘progress’ the scientific war on God, because that is exactly what all of this chimera creation and gain-of-function really is. She sums up the utter disregard bioethicists truly have for actual people:
“Today, I feel like a bioethicist: what I do is bioethics and public health. For me it has been equally important to put forward both my Berman Institute of Bioethics and Bloomberg School of Public Health affiliations. I don’t spend 50% of the time on each; I spend 100% of my time on the integration of the two.
“What defines bioethics is the nature of the topic, not the method of inquiry. Bioethics questions refer to problems with moral elements that relate to health, healthcare, science, or technology. The lens or method of inquiry through which one examines moral questions in these topics is not what defines bioethics. For example, one can look at bioethics through a philosophical lens or a legal lens. Bioethics isn’t defined by the approach — it’s defined by the nature of the question.”
There is no separation between the ethical considerations of medical interventions and the conducting of the medical interventions. All that matters is that the question can be asked. The justifications aren’t really needed because at the end of the day ethics really aren’t rooted in anything but the minds of men and, thus, are subject to change. In May of 2022 Kass published a paper about how to protect meat workers from the Covidiocy she pretends is going to murder the whole world. She writes, “Our recommendations are grounded in core public health ethical values of health and safety, health justice and equity, and community.” All of that is based on fallacy. She, along with her Mengele-loving coauthors recommended – OSHA demand the meat-industry comply with the CDC’s COVID-19 recommendations; the government should dictate line speeds; the entire industry be affected by all of these recommendations; CDC propaganda training sessions be conducted; states (citing Michigan’s COVID-19 debauchery) should enforce their own CDC-narrative-driven regulations; isolation and quarantine facilities, such as hotels, be provided by meat-processors and local governments; trusted members and organizations should destroy their reputations in the cultural and linguistic communities they serve by ‘educating’ those communities in Kass’ recommendations; transportation to and from work should involve mandatory masking and isolation; attendance bonuses be eradicated and sick leave handed out like candy; the employer should share testing data with public health regimes and provide, perhaps mandate, free tests for their workers; employers support for public health efforts to surveil their employees through contact tracing; employers to make sure that vaccines are free for their employees and to encourage (not mandate) their workers to get one in every conceivable way; and employers should provide healthcare coverage for anyone who has become ill from COVID-19. These recommendations were released in the fifth month of 2022. All of the authors of the piece have a seat waiting for them at Nuremberg 2.0 and a noose with their name on it.
But that is typical of bioethicists. They exist to justify whatever unjustifiable scientific experiment or biotechnological cottage industry pays them. They have no ethics. All they have is fancy titles that may as well just read murderer.
And, as for the God which bioethicists do their utter best to completely ignore and disregard; he doesn’t like what these people have decided to justify. There is a reason that the Bible talks about the corruption of the whole earth in Genesis 6. Almost the entire world was comprised of things God did not create. Right before Genesis 6 mentions the entire earth being corrupted, it notes Noah being perfect in his generations meaning he and his family were not part of the ancient circus’ chimeric freak show. What kind of ancient debauchery will these bioethicists allow to return to the earth based on their useless man-made platitudes. Why do bioethicists in general reject the laws of God? Because they know that by justifying such experimentation and scientific endeavors – the corruption of the DNA in all of the life on earth – they are not going to be viewed positively by their Creator. The one they serve will gladly listen to their wails for all eternity. To fix this massive ethical dilemma the bioethicists have decided to believe a complete lie – that God just doesn’t exist. Not only is their sin of corrupting the earth no longer an issue, their pursuit of the destruction of the human race through biological massacre can continue to embolden those who are hands-on conducting such massacres. I suggest they reconsider their positions and read the Bible to learn the actual truth. I also suggest all of us read our Bibles so that we can point out that truth to them.
Bless God and God bless.