There's nothing particularly new happening, today (plus ca change, plus ca le meme chose), but I felt like venting my spleen in the general direction of the MHRA, and the subject of experimenting on "nobodies" seemed to me to be as good as anything else. This to the MHRA, copied to Breckenridge, Woods, Johnson and Vara:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I came across this little snippet, as I surfed around, looking for something damning to say about your quack industry:
Sentenced to Science: Prisoners as Human Guinea Pigs
Of course, I already know that "science" and the CIA have been in collusion over mind control experiments (the infamous "Operation Midnight Climax", for example), but I'm delighted to see that engaging in experimentation on unwitting participants (either completely unwitting, or unwitting as to the nature of the experiments that they were participating in), is not confined to fucking around with people's nervous systems.
"One wishes that his statement to the Associated Press were true: "We've all come a long way from saying we should experiment on marginal people, with or without their consent.""
Yes, that just about sums it up, I think. What is the MHRA's position, when it comes to experimenting with drugs on people who are unlikely to complain, and if they do, may be discredited, or silenced, relatively easily? To be honest, I find it as difficult to see you (ie, the "scientific" community) as human, as you do to regard those damaged by the drugs that you have licensed as human.
You had better believe that I'm coming after you. Enjoy your coffee.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
"We enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe. No product is risk-free. Underpinning all our work lie robust and fact-based judgements to ensure that the benefits to patients and the public justify the risks."
The MHRA is four years old.
Matt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
1 comment:
I believe that also what the Nazi doctor Mengeleve said. The means does not justify the end. Moreover, many studies are, oftentimes, inconclusive, wrong, and misleading, at best, with a concommitant high price to humanity. If science placed a high priority on the international law of human rights estblished after WW2, we would utilize only true volunteers and have informed consent. Quite frankly, the world is better learning the lesson to respect humanity; however, marginal, rather than learning a miniscule, piece of science, only relevant to a scientist.
Post a Comment