Text shockers below the fold. Thanks to Alert Reader.
…and advocates communitarian “human sacrifice” for the “good” of the whole. Christine Grady, Head of the Human Research Experiments/Medical Ethics Section of the NIH — was also on the Presidential Ethics Committee Under Obama 2010-17. Grady also just happens to be married to Dr. Anthony Fauci, while her sister Joanne just happens to be married to James Huskey, former US State Department diplomat posted to Kenya, and current contractor employed by the US State Department, likely to gatekeep any FOIA demands that could reveal the genocidal pharmacidical research on vaccines that has long been deceitfully and demonically done on the people of Africa, as well as CIA-coordinated human/child trafficking. Below please see excellent time-pointed video investigative report by Amazing Polly, as well as, just below this, a link to an NIH-related powerpoint with Grady laying out her research “ethics” in her own words, followed by key excerpts of this powerpoint with contextual comments.
Framework for the Ethics of Research with Human Subjects-Christine Grady, Ph.D
Telling Excerpts-Framework for the Ethics of Research with Human Subjects-
Christine Grady, Ph.D
These views are mine and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, or the Department of Health and Human Services. I have no conflicts of interest to declare. (Grady says this while being married to Fauci, her brother-in-law being Huskey, and hence indirectly tied to the Gates Foundation and their pharmacidical experiments on the African people, as well as being able to suppress any information on them. )
The goal of clinical research is to generate useful knowledge about human health and illness
Benefit to participants is not the purpose of research (although it does occur)
People are the means to developing useful knowledge; and are thus at risk of exploitation
(Humanity in service to knowledge; not knowledge in service to humanity as a creed guarantees such aforementioned risk of exploitation. – REC)
Ethics of Clinical Research: Lessons From History
Few rules. Physicians experimenting to benefit individuals
“Utilitarian era” emphasis on benefit to society, inclusion of vulnerable groups (in dangerous research experimentation; implied here, if not explicitly stated. )
(This was the only historical era of biomedical research profiled in this presentation; no other with differing emphases/ethics was profiled. )
Favorable risk-benefit (This resembles corporate insurance jargon. )
Are risks to subjects necessary and minimized?
Are risks justified by benefit to individual subjects and/or the importance of the knowledge to society?
Are benefits enhanced? (Benefits to whom?)
[I]nterests other than those of the subject may on some occasions be sufficient by themselves to justify the risks involved in the research, so long as the subjects’ rights have been protected.
Different Goals Different Methods Different justification for risk to individuals
(Entire page shows cartoon titled The Consent Process. Shows four mafia gangsters in a dark room surrounding and making young man sign a contract on a table, with one looking threateningly at his watch. (Could not copy this apparent attempt at black globalist “humor” to show you.)
Framework- What makes clinical research ethical?
Valuable scientific question
Valid scientific methodology
Fair subject selection
Favorable risk-benefit (To whom is deliberately left unspecified )
Independent review Informed consent
Respect for enrolled subjects Systematic and sequential
Necessary Procedural requirements may be waived
Universal Adapted and implemented according to context
(One context for waiving research requirements being “emergencies” – such as that which supposedly necessitate those for the CV-19 plandemic. )
Enhancing scientific validity could increase risks.
What seems necessary to respect enrolled subjects or obtain informed consent may compromise scientific validity.
(“Scientific validity” does not include danger to subjects, and “informed consent” may compromise “scientific validity”. )