This is one of the most important guides for anyone trying to understand what guides public health policymaking across the US and Europe today. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (funded by Wellcome Trust - GlaxoWellcome Big Pharma - led by Marxist Authoritarian Jeremy Farrar recently appointed as the WHO's chief scientist) published Pub…
This is one of the most important guides for anyone trying to understand what guides public health policymaking across the US and Europe today. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (funded by Wellcome Trust - GlaxoWellcome Big Pharma - led by Marxist Authoritarian Jeremy Farrar recently appointed as the WHO's chief scientist) published Public Health: Ethical Issues guide in 2007, that lays down the mindset and rationale of public policymakers to this day. A discussion of practicing coercive and manipulative public policy dealing with infectious disease, obesity, alcohol and tobacco and fluoridation of water, the ethical considerations that these self-proclaimed "good stewards" of citizens claim to balance the competing interests of individual rights and collective safety.
It's a very high-minded, self-congratulatory justification for adoption of a benevolent authoritarian governing model. "We're good, caring totalitarians, not like those mean, uncaring totalitarians who've come before us." It gives muted voice to individual liberty, dismissed as soon as shared, then settles in on high praise for collective public health and safety mandates, coercion, manipulation and deception. Because it's for a greater good, you know. Justifying the kinds of "noble lies" spun by the Fauci's, politicians, media and corporate partners.
With respect to the Fluoridating Water section, it acknowledges that there is no definitive evidence of any efficacy at preventing caries (cavities) with more than 60 years of experience and research (now 75 years). Just based on assertions by proponents using controlled laboratory experiments impossible to replicate in the real world. It also acknowledges that opponents have presented many studies showing evidence of harm, cancers and other ailments attributed to fluoridation. But it discounts them saying causality hasn't been proven by the opponents and proponents dispute them.
So, how to treat it ethically, they ask? Under the guide's ethical considerations it goes to great lengths to say manipulative, coercive interventions that don't provide any opt-out mechanism for the public must be clearly proven to be "safe and effective." (Magic words in the good stewardship model of ethical public policy, not a coincidence those words are repeated as the vaccine's mantra) So because fluoridation doesn't meet that test the Nuffield guide says nations shouldn't make fluoridating water public policy. All good, right?
Wrong. It goes on to say that while nation's shouldn't make fluoridating water public policy, if local governments led by fluoridation proponents wish to do so then that's A-Ok! Then shifting the burden on opponents of fluoridating water to prove it's harmful. With studies that provide clear and convincing evidence to compel local authorities to stop fluoridation. Nice how that works, huh?
Kind of like mask mandates. No evidence showing they work, but if local authorities impose them it's up to opponents to prove they're harmful, with studies the authorities agree are clear and convincing. Under this model local authorities could require masks for 75 years without any evidence they are either safe or effective. And be righteous in their ethics and vanities as self-adoring good stewards of the people.
Oh, Anthony Fauci's wife, Christine Grady, is the Chief Bioethicist at the National Institute of Health. With ethics like theirs....
Lastly, Bioethics is a field that demands our immediate attention. Those leading bioethicists around the world don't have the same concept of ethics as We, The People do. Bioethics guides public policymaking on water fluoridation, vaccines, biotechnology like CRISPR gene editing, RNA gene manipulation and therapy (like mRNA), eugenics, sterilization, euthanasia, transhumanism, etc. The attempted control of all future life. With friendly US law towards all of these bioethical interventions, including Buck v. Bell precedent still in effect, a lot of hazards created by those in power to try to mitigate:
This is one of the most important guides for anyone trying to understand what guides public health policymaking across the US and Europe today. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (funded by Wellcome Trust - GlaxoWellcome Big Pharma - led by Marxist Authoritarian Jeremy Farrar recently appointed as the WHO's chief scientist) published Public Health: Ethical Issues guide in 2007, that lays down the mindset and rationale of public policymakers to this day. A discussion of practicing coercive and manipulative public policy dealing with infectious disease, obesity, alcohol and tobacco and fluoridation of water, the ethical considerations that these self-proclaimed "good stewards" of citizens claim to balance the competing interests of individual rights and collective safety.
https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf
It's a very high-minded, self-congratulatory justification for adoption of a benevolent authoritarian governing model. "We're good, caring totalitarians, not like those mean, uncaring totalitarians who've come before us." It gives muted voice to individual liberty, dismissed as soon as shared, then settles in on high praise for collective public health and safety mandates, coercion, manipulation and deception. Because it's for a greater good, you know. Justifying the kinds of "noble lies" spun by the Fauci's, politicians, media and corporate partners.
With respect to the Fluoridating Water section, it acknowledges that there is no definitive evidence of any efficacy at preventing caries (cavities) with more than 60 years of experience and research (now 75 years). Just based on assertions by proponents using controlled laboratory experiments impossible to replicate in the real world. It also acknowledges that opponents have presented many studies showing evidence of harm, cancers and other ailments attributed to fluoridation. But it discounts them saying causality hasn't been proven by the opponents and proponents dispute them.
So, how to treat it ethically, they ask? Under the guide's ethical considerations it goes to great lengths to say manipulative, coercive interventions that don't provide any opt-out mechanism for the public must be clearly proven to be "safe and effective." (Magic words in the good stewardship model of ethical public policy, not a coincidence those words are repeated as the vaccine's mantra) So because fluoridation doesn't meet that test the Nuffield guide says nations shouldn't make fluoridating water public policy. All good, right?
Wrong. It goes on to say that while nation's shouldn't make fluoridating water public policy, if local governments led by fluoridation proponents wish to do so then that's A-Ok! Then shifting the burden on opponents of fluoridating water to prove it's harmful. With studies that provide clear and convincing evidence to compel local authorities to stop fluoridation. Nice how that works, huh?
Kind of like mask mandates. No evidence showing they work, but if local authorities impose them it's up to opponents to prove they're harmful, with studies the authorities agree are clear and convincing. Under this model local authorities could require masks for 75 years without any evidence they are either safe or effective. And be righteous in their ethics and vanities as self-adoring good stewards of the people.
Oh, Anthony Fauci's wife, Christine Grady, is the Chief Bioethicist at the National Institute of Health. With ethics like theirs....
Lastly, Bioethics is a field that demands our immediate attention. Those leading bioethicists around the world don't have the same concept of ethics as We, The People do. Bioethics guides public policymaking on water fluoridation, vaccines, biotechnology like CRISPR gene editing, RNA gene manipulation and therapy (like mRNA), eugenics, sterilization, euthanasia, transhumanism, etc. The attempted control of all future life. With friendly US law towards all of these bioethical interventions, including Buck v. Bell precedent still in effect, a lot of hazards created by those in power to try to mitigate:
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1622&context=lawineq