Psycho-Babble Politics | about politics | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

the unfortunate experiment

Posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2021, at 16:46:50

In reply to ., posted by alexandra_k on January 19, 2021, at 16:29:39

they call the cartwrite inquiry 'the unfortunate experiment'.

the idea being that it was unfortunate for the doctor involved that the legal system chose to take issue with what he was doing.

they think it was unfortunate because there are so many other doctors involved in similar types of experiments. both at the time. and subsequently.

they think that the lesson or the moral of the cartwrite inquiry is that people don't need to know / shouldn't really hear about the things that are standardly or typically or normally done in our hospitals or our universities or whatever.

people don't have the stomach for it. the balls for it. people don't know how scientific research (implication inevitably or must) proceed. in order for advances to be made. in order for timely advances to be made.

it's what they say to justify it to themselves. that the ethical or moral violations are required or necesary for scientific progress.


how much progress does new zealand made? really?

the great lie seems to be that we are world leading in anything good or important or anything that actually matters.

mostly... we don't progress. mostly the experimentation isn't helping progress isn't contributing to progress. it's mostly oppression of the people with a thinly veiled excuse or rationalisation or justification that it's needed for their own good, somehow. you know. the people were asking for it. or they would have if they understood what was good for their doctor. i mean them. i mean their psychopathic doctor. i mean them. helping you, helping you, helping myself to you, helping me help myself to you, the things i need to say to live with myself.

so this doctor takes cervical cells from infants as soon as they born. swabs them. without the consent of their mother. because he had this idea that he might manage to collect cells that were sufficiently distressed / traumatised looking... but he might be able to collect cells from that same individual later in life where the cells weren't looking distressed / traumatised looking. a sort of... unhealthy pre-cancerous sort of seeming... then things getting better. then things looking pre-cancerous. then things looking better.

and by collecting this longitudinal evidence of cells looking pre-cancerous and then looking better... he wanted to justify withholding treatment from women with cervical cancer. the idea was that they would get better all by themselves no treatment was needed.

and of course the government likely funded all this because he was agreeing not to treat a lot of women in the public sector which meant that the government didn't need to pay for their medical treatment and since the government hadn't given them jobs sufficient for them to purchase health insurance the government likely thought it was saving money on their deaths, too.

and of course he was not treating women for pre-cancer / cancer who would have been treated in other countries. his thing was that other countries intervene in a way that is costly and not worth it. we should just do nothing.

like how we refuse to treat people with strep throat in the name of preventing antibiotic resistence. we should just do nothing.

anyway, apparently he was wrong and many women died needlessly.

and he wasn't liable becuase the government has removed people's right to sue medical practitioners.

more recently they were doing dose-dependent response studies on how exposure to black mould toxins in people's houses was resulting in problems breathing, asthma, allergies. that means that they were forcing people to live in... forcing people to remain living in... not invervening in... people keeping children in mouldy homes so they could measure just how sick they could make them.

in the name of 'equity', of course. usually it's maaori and pacific people who are targeted for involuntary participation in these medical 'experiments' or torture trials or however you want to see them.

i suppose they want to infect the infants cervic with HPV, really. different strains of it when they are very very young. Then see when they get their cervical cancer.

i mean -- why wouldn't you -- if you could get away with it? and you can in new zealand.

anyone might be forgiven for thinking that that is what this country is for...

the great experiment.


so... suppose they manage to give a bunch of infants different strains of HPV and see which of them cause cancer and the age of onset when they are intentionally infected at birth

(i mean who wouldn't wnat to be the very very first to give a newborn girl an STD if you thought you could get away with it?)

how is this helping?

I mean... Science. Helping people...

What can we learn from that that we couldn't learn from association studies?

The problem with people who think there's no alternative... That atrocities are required for timely progress...

Is a combination of stupidity (don't confuse a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity) and psychopathy.

There's so much unnecessay and needless torture. Of animals and people both.

There is no excuse.




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Politics | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1113443