The American Medical Association Journal of Ethics wants more guinea pigs

published Feb 26, 2012, last modified Jun 26, 2013

And they're building a moral case for Global Tuskeegee, if you don't do as they say.

Go read this journal now.  Go and come back.

Fucking wow, right? That's some beautiful (if malevolentsophistry right there, isn't it?

Let's start the usual smackdown.

Susanne Sheehy, totalitarian shill par excellence, has a problem: she can't find enough volunteers to test vaccines. People just aren't that keen on injecting unknown substances in their bodies, just because someone else wants them to. No surprises there.

OK then, so she asks "how do we solve that problem"? As far as anyone can see, the only other way to get people to do what they don't want to do (in this case, "participate" in his experiments) is to threaten them into compliance, and to punish resistors so that the threat carries weight.

A reasonable, decent, non-totalitarian person would stop at that point. Case closed, we all go home.

Not our totalitarian Shilly, no siree. She sees, in principle, no ethical problem with violently forcing people to be assaulted against their will. Violence against peaceful people who refuse to cooperate is, you see, firmly on the table for her.

But she has a tiny pesky problem to deal with first. She's not dumb -- she understands the practical problem thatany sane person would immediately spit in her face "Well, that's fucking wrong, bitch, fuck you, and if you touch even a single hair of my or my child's head, I will break every bone in your face and have you thrown in a cage for assault" in response to her Macchiavellian plan.

So, the only way she can get her way (without any significant resistance from decent human beings), is if she (a) convinces a large group of thugs to carry out her plan, and (b) she persuades a majority of society to believe in the corrupt idea that anyone who resists her totalitarian plan is "malevolent, dangerous and criminal".

Thus, the next logical step in her malevolent plan is to persuade others that her malevolent intentions are "benevolent". Fortunately for this sociopath, humanity has thousands of years of experience manufacturing magical spells to transform "evil" into "good", so the only difficult task here is to assemble a moral sophism using well-known fallacies and lies, readily available off the government shelf.

To achieve this goal, this cunt constructs a straw man, a false ethical justification, to piece together a bunch of abstract noble-sounding platitudes, that allows her to falsely conclude "See? For all these good and noble reasons, it is okay to force people to enroll in my experiment and, of course, to assault or extort those who resist."

Is it any surprise that she invokes other already-established organized crimes (such as "conscription") as excuses? Why else would she say "well, my plan is fairly similar to conscription", if not to make the reader falsely conclude "since we already tolerate military slavery, surely we can accommodate Shilly's totalitarian plan"?

And so, the shill vomits fecal pearls like this:

But relying on altruism alone to facilitate clinical trials is potentially unsustainable and ethically contentious.

LOL. Seriously? What about the alternative she is proposing? Is it somehow not "ethically contentious" to perform medical procedures on people against their will? Apparently not, not if she manages to make us think of this mass assault as something "noble and good". She wants to keep you distracted with a made-up "ethical contention", while people are used as guinea pigs against their will.

Watch this brilliant anchoring trick she uses:

A more palatable and realistic option is a policy of “mandated choice.” In this case individuals would be required by law to state in advance their willingness to participate in vaccine trials

See? The "more palatable and realistic" option requires a lesser form of threat against people, but it still uses organized violence. So she's saying "we can go with violence against those who refuse to be vaccinated, or we can just use violence against those who object to answering sensitive questions asked by my thugs". You will note how, entirely absent from the false "choices", is any form of voluntary choice.

Anyway. I won't bother deconstructing any more specific fallacious tactics she uses, as you can see they're tweaked versions of the same old corrupt justifications for government aggression. Of course, just like in civics class, the violence is not spelled out in the mission statement... but, given the historical examples she uses to support her totalitarian plan, we all know very well what the violent implications are. Less freedom, more aggression.

And so, having analyzed some of the sophistry in that propaganda piece, we come to the final question. What does Susanne Shilly want to be true? Here it is, verbatim:

If a concerted effort were made to increase public awareness of the success of vaccination, the potential of novel vaccines to improve global health drastically, and the important contribution that individuals can make by volunteering for studies, perhaps mandatory enrollment would not even need to be considered.

Translation: "Give us more funding for 'concerted efforts', or we'll just have to resort to Global Tuskeegee sooner or later."

Did anyone notice what organization carries this puff piece? In case you didn't: it's the American Medical Association journal of ethics.

People: this is exactly how the biggest crimes are always perpetrated. Every master con artist always resorts to manipulative and false ethics to get his way.