Public Health and the Sound of Silence

We have witnessed a Complete Ethical Collapse without consequence

Ethical Issues in Public Health* by Theodore H. Tulchinsky MD MPH

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 it provides a “Magna Carta” as a common standard for all peoples and all nations. Arising from the horrors of genocide and mass civilian casualties of World War II, the Declaration of Human Rights sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It also provides a context for the complex topic of ethics in public health.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the distinction between right and wrong—with the moral consequences of human actions. The ethical principles that arise in epidemiologic practice and research include:

• Informed consent

• Confidentiality

• Respect for human rights

• Scientific integrity”

We are seeing a collapses of these ethical principles in public health and a weaponization of public health on citizens without consequence. My analysis on the issue? Sure why not.

1. Scientific Integrity collapses where studies are performed in secrecy and dissenting scientists are silenced on even pain of practicing. Scientific Integrity perishes in the annals of publication when truth is not pursued for fear of ‘adverstiment- (for that is what pharma is) or government censure (how horrific that publications of science enable government power over citizens without protection, power that would be held in check by the use of ETHICS).

   Scientific Integrity is lost when ‘greater good, and narrative notions’ are preferred over evidence based medicine. Scientific integrity is impoverished when legal mechanisms are used to prevent the speech that would discuss these very ethical issues and hold them to account. Lawyers and Institutions that permit this on the pulpit of ESG, or fear condemn their society and those in it. And the response and solution is a rigorous application of ethics. Of Right and Wrong in Ethics not in ‘greater good socialism’- or slow mo-Stalinism.

2. Confidentiality is eliminated when health data is the reason for access to society. This becomes part of a disgusting use of social credit to score humans and reduces their humanity to an algorithm based existence. QR code micro quantum data will never provide Human Rights, but circumscribe them until they are eliminated as a possibility.

3. Human rights are attacked rather than respected when health data is used to access the ‘human rights’ in a permissive structure based on the aforementioned lack of confidentiality and quantum measurement, and creates an economic apartheid based on the status of health data in public health. The new currency to be traded then becomes your own forfeiture of medical consent. You access your economic or belonging, or human rights at the expense of physical and bodily integrity.

4. They are no longer rights if the human has to have a medical treatment for the human to gain and access their ‘human rights’. This type of application thus becomes the death of Human Rights. Businesses and those in power who enforce these, thus participate in the suicide of civil society, and replace it with a permissive structure for ‘life’ itself.

   Informed Consent has been done away with by officials proclaiming ‘the greater good’ in ab abject perfidy of silence; further insisting on cornering discussion, speech, and placing normative connotations of trademark and PR statements to provide ‘information’.

5. Consent is strictly obtained through ‘influencer’ dialogue or through shame based dialogue, or through access to employment or to movement within society; or through fear of consequences such as social rejection or legal consequences that now envision and include prison.

   “Notions of information” are expressed in the absence of “actual information” such as ‘safe and effective’: not as an objective or subjective truth. These are parceled as a repetitive phrases in the public eye by ‘influencers’, underscored with the promise of social exorcism for any failure to fully endorse.

   These constructs of non-information have now replaced ethical and medical concepts of Informed Consent.

Having done away with each of these 4 branches of ethics in public health, the ability of those in power to judge right and wrong has been lost. So the question becomes, are they lost by accident or through a purpose we would deign avoid.

Has the purpose of public health been hijacked with an absence of ethics to perform a gross social reconstruction?

At the same time these excesses in power have been circling the world, in terms of vaccines, QR Codes, Vaccine passports, we have seen the other elements of public health also gain ground: Euthanasia; Eugenics; and sterilization.

If it were just one branch of public health gaining ground in western societies you might wonder what the lack of ethics in the practice public health amounts to.

However where public health is gaining ground in all these separate areas, we must conclude it is a system of warfare on the march. I’ve been looking at legislation, power, and social constructs that works against the people. Can laws and public health be a form of warfare?

The rebuttal that is: Silence peasant, treating of this subjects minimizes previous historical events.

I will not accept this. A true retort must be the immediate imposition of a complete return of Ethics to the exercise of Public Health. Those performing public health now seem entirely co-opted or devoid of ethics or worse intent on repeating history where public health previously abused societies and/or resulted in further atrocities.

If you tell me I cannot examine a lack of ethics because of history, it is YOU WHO ARE ABUSING THAT HISTORY to avoid an ethical examination of governments’ power and actions.

Rights without Remedies are not Rights. Using a historical past we fully condemn to silence one’s critics only works if you own all the ways to make speech. Is that why governments right now ALSO WANT TO OWN ALL THE WAYS TO MAKE SPEECH.

If you don’t see the trend then I say this prayer, that tonight when you sleep you see and understand, that my words drip into your consciousness and spread like a cure to this disease. Words are so powerful. The pen is mightier than the sword. So is the reason they wish to silence opposition. Words frame the ways to respond. Silence does not.

When words can be articulated in ways that show your abject evil intents, then you cannot say: silence peasant. Those words are not yours to be said! My words are the rebuttal to our governments actions with concomitant lack of ethics. And only an immediate and full application of ethics should be the retort. Not; don’t say that, because of history or because we own the ways words can be said.

Please share. Thank-you for your support. Consider upgrading your subscription.