This article was written in 2020- June 2020. Though this article touches on the issue of ethical questioning regarding the Covid jab. No real ethical questions were raised about this jab or the so called trials. For the most part trials they didn’t exist. They didn’t need to.
The governments of the day simply authorized the experimental jabs for use. No worries about ethics. Or those pesky human rights. Oh, wait a minute! No need to worry about stamping all over human rights. Just manipulate and terrorize the populace into accepting the shot that was going to ‘save them”
Sixty years ago, a monstrous hepatitis experiment was performed on mentally disabled children at Willowbrook State School that raises serious ethical questions about vaccine challenge trials for Covid-19.
Nina became one of more than 50 mentally disabled children, ages 5 to 10, under the care of Dr. Saul Krugman, a respected pediatrician from New York who wanted to determine if there were multiple strains of hepatitis, and whether a vaccine could be created to protect against the disease. Krugman and his partner, Dr. Joan Giles, used the Willowbrook residents to test a preliminary vaccine for this disease that had killed millions worldwide. From 1955 to 1970, the
children were injected with the virus itself or made to drink chocolate milk mixed with feces from other infected children in order to study their immunity.
That’s 15 years of human experimentation- On children. As the staff abused the children.
In the early 1950s,
Dr. Krugman, a former flight surgeon for the U.S. Army Air Corps, went to the Epidemiological Board with a proposition: he wanted to create a vaccine for hepatitis, and knew the perfect place where he could do his research.
Willowbrook was overcrowded, already rampant with disease, and at the time it wasn’t uncommon to test vaccines on children.
As it was then, so it is now.
While the vaccine challenge trials would be done with healthy adult volunteers, the Covid-19 vaccine challenge trial and the Willowbrook hepatitis experiments beg the same question:
Is it really necessary—or right—to risk the health of a few for the benefit of many?
The school opened in 1947 and was built to hold 4,000 residents, but for years that number was over 6,000. Disease and neglect were everywhere, and multiple residents died from untreated illness and abuse. In 1965, Robert F. Kennedy, then a New York Senator, made an unannounced visit to Willowbrook and left appalled. “There are no civil liberties for those put in the cells of Willowbrook,” he later testified before Congress, calling the institution a “snake pit.”
When Dr. Krugman and Dr. Giles began the Willowbrook hepatitis experiments, they used the conditions of Willowbrook to their advantage for recruiting new families. Despite its well-documented horrors, Willowbrook was still one of the only options for children with severe disabilities, and there was a long waitlist. Dr. Krugman offered several parents, including Nina Galen’s, the ability to jump the line and have their children put in the newer, cleaner research wards with more staff—if they joined the experiments. “I did feel coerced,” McCourt says, “I felt like I was denied help unless I took this [opportunity].”
Coercion/Force- left with no choice- Like Canada and the recent gaslighting Trudeau. He claimed he didn’t “force” anyone to get the jab. He just created the conditions, whereby you had no choice.
As Trudeau said: “And therefore, while not forcing anyone to get vaccinated, I chose to make sure that all the incentives and all of the protections were there to encourage Canadians to get vaccinated. And that’s exactly what they did.”
But that’s true only in the sense of the narrowest interpretation of what the use of force means.
What Trudeau actually said, on Oct. 6, 2001, in a video,
“Announcing mandatory vaccination for the federal workforce and transportation sectors” was:
“The bottom line? Proof of vaccination will be required by no later than the end of this month for all federal employees. And by mid-November, enforcement measures in place will make sure that everyone is vaccinated.”
Trudeau also weaponized the vaccination issue for political purposes and we know exactly when that happened.
Coercion then. Coercion now
Krugman also told parents that since hepatitis was already prevalent at Willowbrook, their children may as well have the chance for a vaccine. McCourt remembers being told her daughter could get an “antidote” to hepatitis if she joined the experiment. When she asked why the hepatitis studies couldn’t be done on primates, she was told that using animals would be “too expensive.”
Despite understanding the optics of infecting mentally disabled children with a potentially deadly disease, Dr. Krugman felt the risk was worth the reward.
Krugman felt the risk was worth the reward? Didn’t he have his own children to experiment on? He should have opted for that, since he felt the risk was worth the reward.
The experiments also involved infecting healthy children with the virus through the chocolate milk concoction. The doctors eventually learned how much it took for the children to show symptoms of hepatitis, allowed them to recover, and then gave them the virus all over again. These experiments were done to test if someone who had recovered from hepatitis would remain immune or if they could be reinfected again.
As each trial concluded, Dr. Krugman published the results in prominent medical journals including the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. From the time of the first publication, the experiments were controversial within the medical community. In 1966, renowned medical ethicist Henry K. Beecher published an article titled, “Ethics and Clinical Research,” which listed Willowbrook as an example of an unethical clinical experiment and concluded that “there is no right to risk an injury to one person for the benefit of others.”
Five years later, the editorial board of the Lancet apologized for publishing Dr. Krugman’s studies without greater skepticism. “The Willowbrook experiments have always carried a hope that hepatitis might one day be prevented,” the editors wrote, “but that could not justify the giving of infected material to children who would not directly benefit.” A year later, Krugman had to ward off protesters at a medical conference in Atlantic City.
The Forbes article is quite lengthy. I do hope you read it entirely. Seems nothing has changed in the abuse of human kind. Coercion is unethical. Coercion denies people their individual human rights over their own body. And there is no right to risk an injury to one person for the benefit of others