These videos might be less popular but still a part of science...if you can I would encourage you to make more videos for these types of information. Thank You:-)
I flicked through the little thing on the bottom, as they have put in chapters, and yep... top of my list those *******. So much of what they did had no purpose other then the prolong suffering of those being tortured.
Do you believe these agencies must go through an ethics review? Don't be naive, secret government agencies don't care about ethics, only results even if the result is pointless.
It's interesting that you included the Syphilis study. It seems the only thing they did wrong there is refuse treatment. Yet you have entire countries where refusal of treatment is common practice to this day. Heck, take the U.S. for example. How many people there are refused treatment because they can't afford it and then all the doctors do is monitor what happens.
While I consider it pretty minor compared to others, it has a few reasons: 1) The study was on a disease that had a cure already 2) The lack of consent from the recipients 3) The extent they went to prevent others from finding out 4) The disease was allowed to spread outside of the containment area 5) Was carried out so poorly the data it did generate was useless 6) The racism involved by those carrying out the study 7) Openly violates court rulings concerning the rights to medical treatment I could go on but I need to start making bread. Just keep in mind there was a lot wrong with that study even if it wasn't putting people into freezes and timing how long it took for them to die. When you lie to someone in order to study their death, or just refuse to do anything that will eliminate harm so you can profit off it, and still fail to produce any useable results... you are a monster that is also incompetent.
@@lostbutfreesoul Ok, Let’s add back in the bits the media leave out in order to sell papers (I guess clicks or views now a days). As per your numbers; 1) Not true, there was no cure when it started. 2) Not true. It was however just a monitor study as there was not treatment at the time. Even the sensationalist news media doesn’t even claim that any more. It’s now usually “No evidence of consent”. Which is beyond obvious as it was 1932 and literacy wasn’t what it is today. 3) Yes, he framed it that way but they could have left the study at any time for any reason. 4) Agreed. But how is that not the same as any other disease. AIDS is deadly and yet they didn’t lock up people even at the height of the hysteria over it when there wasn’t even a treatment. They just “allowed to spread outside of the containment area”. Don’t like AIDS for an example. Give me an example of one disease where they locked people up to prevent it from spreading. No, they only lock people up after they have shown that they wishfully spread disease. 5) I can’t speak to that and I’m guessing you can’t ether and are just repeating the sensational news. That being said. It did get shutdown so it wouldn’t be that surprising that the data was incomplete and therefore scientifically useless. 6) Ironically I’d say your getting that from racist people that can’t think of anything other then race. Fact of the matter any scientific study needs initial conditions. In this case. A reasonably isolated community, with a signification infection rate, etc etc. I’d bet race wasn’t on the criteria and the area they picked was just the best they could come up with that fit the criteria. It’s more likely that it was just racist bigots that didn’t know what they were talking about could only see color that started that bit of nonsense. However, if you have the experiment design document I’d be happy to read it. 7) What court rulings? This was in the US. Far as I know, there it’s only hospitals that are required to treat people if they are unconscious and can not speak for themselves. This really doesn't seem that different then what's going on now. Sure Syphilis isn't the topic but AIDS, Cancer, etc etc. How many cancer deaths are happening every year in the US because people can't afford treatment?
These videos might be less popular but still a part of science...if you can I would encourage you to make more videos for these types of information. Thank You:-)
Ethic boards must be passed to get your project off the ground now - at least, legally speaking. AFAIK.
The CIA is not concerned with ethics. Or boards, unless they are for waterboarding..
@@RoySATX sadly true...
Fauch was paid for illegal off shore lab work. How do we explain this?
This will probably have unit 731
I flicked through the little thing on the bottom, as they have put in chapters, and yep... top of my list those *******.
So much of what they did had no purpose other then the prolong suffering of those being tortured.
Can you talk about how the US army irradiated soldiers to see the effects?
No wonder there's an ethics board these days!
Do you believe these agencies must go through an ethics review? Don't be naive, secret government agencies don't care about ethics, only results even if the result is pointless.
No ethics board was necessary to Pfizer Covid19 vaccines...
Wait maybe he's not German😂
Great video.
Why no one mentions the Nuremberg code when being forced to either get the jab or no job/school?
Hello
I like pancakes!
Your editing just gets better and better.
Humans are vad
Humans are what
It's interesting that you included the Syphilis study. It seems the only thing they did wrong there is refuse treatment. Yet you have entire countries where refusal of treatment is common practice to this day. Heck, take the U.S. for example. How many people there are refused treatment because they can't afford it and then all the doctors do is monitor what happens.
People refuse treatment even if they can afford it 😂 No one is poor enough to let themselves die, just dumb enough
@@goddammitboi That's an odd statement given how many people die because they can't afort treatment.
While I consider it pretty minor compared to others, it has a few reasons:
1) The study was on a disease that had a cure already
2) The lack of consent from the recipients
3) The extent they went to prevent others from finding out
4) The disease was allowed to spread outside of the containment area
5) Was carried out so poorly the data it did generate was useless
6) The racism involved by those carrying out the study
7) Openly violates court rulings concerning the rights to medical treatment
I could go on but I need to start making bread. Just keep in mind there was a lot wrong with that study even if it wasn't putting people into freezes and timing how long it took for them to die. When you lie to someone in order to study their death, or just refuse to do anything that will eliminate harm so you can profit off it, and still fail to produce any useable results... you are a monster that is also incompetent.
@@lostbutfreesoul Ok, Let’s add back in the bits the media leave out in order to sell papers (I guess clicks or views now a days). As per your numbers;
1) Not true, there was no cure when it started.
2) Not true. It was however just a monitor study as there was not treatment at the time. Even the sensationalist news media doesn’t even claim that any more. It’s now usually “No evidence of consent”. Which is beyond obvious as it was 1932 and literacy wasn’t what it is today.
3) Yes, he framed it that way but they could have left the study at any time for any reason.
4) Agreed. But how is that not the same as any other disease. AIDS is deadly and yet they didn’t lock up people even at the height of the hysteria over it when there wasn’t even a treatment. They just “allowed to spread outside of the containment area”. Don’t like AIDS for an example. Give me an example of one disease where they locked people up to prevent it from spreading. No, they only lock people up after they have shown that they wishfully spread disease.
5) I can’t speak to that and I’m guessing you can’t ether and are just repeating the sensational news. That being said. It did get shutdown so it wouldn’t be that surprising that the data was incomplete and therefore scientifically useless.
6) Ironically I’d say your getting that from racist people that can’t think of anything other then race. Fact of the matter any scientific study needs initial conditions. In this case. A reasonably isolated community, with a signification infection rate, etc etc. I’d bet race wasn’t on the criteria and the area they picked was just the best they could come up with that fit the criteria. It’s more likely that it was just racist bigots that didn’t know what they were talking about could only see color that started that bit of nonsense. However, if you have the experiment design document I’d be happy to read it.
7) What court rulings? This was in the US. Far as I know, there it’s only hospitals that are required to treat people if they are unconscious and can not speak for themselves.
This really doesn't seem that different then what's going on now. Sure Syphilis isn't the topic but AIDS, Cancer, etc etc. How many cancer deaths are happening every year in the US because people can't afford treatment?
.
No.
.
They were deceived. No informed consent.
We should use incarcerated gang members for scientific experiments for the better met of humanity