Sivun näyttöjä yhteensä

Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste antivaxx. Näytä kaikki tekstit
Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste antivaxx. Näytä kaikki tekstit

sunnuntai 21. maaliskuuta 2021

Coronazombies! Infection and Denial in the United Kingdom

 from: https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2020/04/09/coronazombies-infection-and-denial-in-the-united-kingdom/


It’s a curious fact that, in every disaster movie that comes out of Hollywood, whatever threatens Western Civilisation, Humankind or Planet Earth typically starts with the United States of America, usually New York, but sometimes Los Angeles. Whether it’s alien invaders, nuclear war, the rise of artificial intelligence, terrorist attacks, a tsunami wave, an earth-bound asteroid, environmental catastrophe or a deadly epidemic, it’s as if the propaganda arm of the US state is preparing its population for the disasters to come. Given that the majority of the world-ending disasters threatening humankind are created or inflicted by the US Empire while its citizens enjoy the fat creamed off the rest of the world, you have to ask yourself: ‘Do they know something we don’t?’

The answer to that question lies in another type of disaster movie not included in the list above, and that is the zombie apocalypse genre. Recently resuscitated in such Hollywood hits as the remade Dawn of the Dead and replicated in the UK with 28 Days Later — the movie that uncannily predicts the deserted streets of London today — these films have prepared us for the coronavirus crisis. More than that, they have rehearsed us in how to act out our roles — not as heroes, unfortunately, but as the cast of millions who will play the zombies in the film of our own reality. As the Public Health England announcement on Facebook and Twitter directs us: ‘Act like you’ve got it, anyone can spread it.’ And in this film, Coronazombies! (rated U), what we have been infected with is not SARs-CoV-2, which causes the coronavirus disease 2019 that has induced such fear and panic in the British people, but that other virus we call the media, both mainstream and social. In the slang of the Twittersphere, COVID-19 has gone viral.

National Health England

1. Infection

So, what can we do about it? How can we stop being coronazombies and start being protagonists in our own film? This is the fourth of the articles I’ve written about the coronavirus crisis since it reached this country, preceded by COVID-19 and Capitalism, Sociology of a Disease and Language is a Virus, so let’s start again by learning something new about SARs-CoV-2 — not from Matt Hancock, our Secretary of State for Health, a 41 year-old computer software salesman and former economics advisor to George Osborne with a background in the housing market, but from Dr. Knut Wittkowski, an epidemiologist who for 20 years was head of the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Research Design at the Rockefeller University in New York City, and who has been modelling epidemics for 35 years. It’s an unfashionable approach, I know, to ask an epidemiologist about how we should react to disease, but bear with me.

In an interview conducted on 1-2 April, Dr. Wittkowski, like dozens of other eminent epidemiologists, virologists, microbiologists and pulmonologists not working for their governments, expressed the opinion that everything our governments are doing in response to coronavirus is wrong. Not slightly wrong, not questionable, not debatable, but the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

For example, keeping people at home during a respiratory disease epidemic, he said, ‘keeps the virus healthy’, while getting out in the open ‘is what stops every respiratory disease’. This, he explained, is why seasonal influenzas last the winter months and ‘end during springtime’ — roughly, from November to April. Not only that but, according to Dr. Wittkowski, it is not practically possible to contain an air-borne virus like SARs-CoV-2. Keeping a population locked down will only prolong the presence of the respiratory disease the virus creates in the population. ‘I don’t see a good reason’, he said, ‘for a respiratory disease to stay in the population longer than necessary’, so we should ask why our Government is intent on prolonging it in ours.

Above all, closing schools and keeping children at home is the very worst thing we can do, as it stops the development of herd immunity, which short of a vaccine in 18 months’ time is the only way we will ever build immunity to SARs-CoV-2. As Dr. Wittkowski reminds us, we don’t have a vaccine against the common cold, just as we don’t have vaccines — or we have vaccines that are not very effective — for many of the dozens of other influenza viruses, some of them corona viruses, that we suffer from every year, and which develop into pneumonia that kills the very old and already ill in numbers far greater than those dying this year. But even if we did develop one, the virus will eventually mutate and we will, once again, have to develop herd immunity, just as we do every year to every new strain of virus. ‘For some reason that we haven’t fully understood yet’, Dr. Wittkowski observes, ‘humankind has survived all sorts of respiratory diseases.’

The reality, he says, is that this is just another virus, the mortality rate of which is nothing like as high in the UK as the flu epidemics of 2014-15 and 2017-18. And it’s the opinion of numerous epidemiologists around the world not working for their governments that what we should be doing is developing our herd immunity as quickly as possible, rather than shutting down our economy, isolating the already vulnerable and the elderly when over 2.2 million people live alone in the UK, sending home asymptomatic health workers that have a tested positive for SARs-CoV-2 who could be treating those with pneumonia, and all the other measures imposed by our governments.

You might be wondering by now why in China, where the outbreak of the coronavirus began in the city of Wuhan, the epidemic is now over barely three months after the first deaths were recorded, and why, out of a population of 1,386,000,000, they had only 3,330 deaths from COVID-19. In the opinion of Dr. Wittkowski, it’s because the Chinese people had an advantage — though not the one we might think. The Chinese government didn’t know what they were dealing with, so by the time they implemented the lockdown strategies that we are copying across Europe, the extent of the infection with SARs-CoV-2 had already reached a peak and tailed off soon after that — just as seasonal viral epidemics do every year.

Unfortunately, because of the internet, by the time a few people in their 80s with several pre-existing health conditions died in Italy over a month later and subsequently tested positive for SARs-CoV-2, a panicking public started demanding that their governments ‘DO SOMETHING!’ So they did, and in doing so they have extended the viral infection. Instead of developing herd immunity as we do every few years to new viruses — of which 5-14 per cent are corona viruses — an immunity that typically lasts around 2 years before we have to develop it again, we have prolonged it. According to Dr. Wittkowski, who after 35 years of modelling viral epidemics presumably knows what he’s talking about, if our governments had done nothing this seasonal influenza ‘epidemic’ would already be over, and we, having developed immunity, would be able to visit and look after our parents and grandparents, who until then could have been separated from the rest of us for a relatively short period of time compared to the open-ended shutdown we have now.

The result of all this bad advice — or rather, of governments listening to advice that best serves their agendas — is that NHS staff are being sent home after testing positive for a virus that the elderly and ill patients they should be treating have already contracted, placing further strains on our already under-staffed and under-supplied health services. Our children, who are evolutionarily made to resist viruses, will, when they finally and inevitably return to school, revive the virus in a second wave of infection, probably occurring this autumn, and which is, Dr. Wittkowski says in a damning indictment of government policy, ‘a direct consequence of social distancing.’ And we, who should be out in this spring sun developing the 80 per cent infection-rate we need to create the herd immunity that will protect us collectively from this year’s respiratory virus, are instead sitting at home in conditions that encourage the prolongation of SARs-CoV-2 in our bodies, and reporting our neighbours who break the government regulations that are not only without any scientific basis but are actually making this crisis far, far worse. Dr. Wittowski’s comment on this situation is not lacking in the weary irony of the scientist confronted with human stupidity:

‘We should not believe that we are more intelligent than Mother Nature was when we were evolving. Mother Nature was pretty good at making sure that we’re a good match for the disease that we happen to see virtually every year.’

Meanwhile, across the globe, governments who have placed their populations under lockdown for the foreseeable future are passing legislation that is trampling all over our human rights and civil liberties. As an example of which, on April 2 the Danish Parliament passed a new law that makes it possible to close websites and impose fines or imprisonment up to 8 years on anyone who publishes information about COVID-19 that contradicts the government’s official line. It shouldn’t be long till we follow suit in the far more authoritarian UK, so spread this information while you can, because tomorrow it might be illegal. In the meantime, get out, get infected, get well.

* Since publishing this article, the YouTube recording of the interview with Dr. Wittkowski, which had over a million viewers, has been removed following policy changes that make anything contradicting World Health Organisation directives on the coronavirus ‘in violation of YouTube community guidelines’.

2. Denial

But isn’t this all another conspiracy theory? How could the Government of the UK, let alone those of the dozens of other countries across the world, get away with this? Won’t I be claiming next that the coronavirus was invented by the Chinese Government, or the US Government, or the Illuminati, or some other secret society?

No, I won’t. Conspiracy theories rest on the purported truth of unverifiable assertions; capitalism, whose workings are what I’m analysing here, works by capitalising on crises, whether that’s the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001 that justified the accelerated rise of the surveillance state over the past two decades, the financial crisis of 2008 that justified over a decade of fiscal austerity against the poor, the expansion of the housing crisis in the 2010s that justified the demolition and privatisation of council housing, or the rise of Extinction Rebellion protests against climate change in 2019 that is justifying the expansion of capitalism into new markets. All these crisis moments have been exploited by the UK Government to pass legislation that further entrenches neo-liberal policies in our social, economic and political structures, and the coronavirus crisis is no different. Dismissing the exposure of such opportunism as ‘conspiracy theories’ — as is already being done of any critiques of media coverage and Government policies on coronavirus — is how liberals continue to deny the brutal truth about capitalism.

What is different about this crisis is that the communication of the lies about the virus — from its inception in Wuhan to its media representation in Europe, from the changing reactions of our Government to its spread to the replication of Government lies on social media, from the concession of our political structures to new legislation based on those lies to the universal obedience of our population to that legislation — exactly parallels the way the virus itself has passed from person to person, country to country, around the world. ‘Parallel’ perhaps doesn’t do the relationship justice. The silencing of dissenting voices — and especially those speaking with the greatest knowledge about the virus — has not, yet, been imposed by the UK Government or police force or military. Instead, those voices are simply drowned out by the blanket fearmongering of the mainstream press and the white noise of social media. It is the algorithms that replicate the most read, the most liked, the most-reposted and retweeted memes, ensuring the virus of lies continues to replicate at an exponential rate across the internet. Confronted with a supposedly exponentially-growing threat that has no basis either in our scientific knowledge about epidemics or in the empirical data it is producing, the collective fear of our biological selves has turned what is a new strain of respiratory virus with a relatively low mortality rate into a global disaster. The disaster is real, and many tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of people across the world will die because of how we — meaning both us and our governments — have reacted to this virus, but the virus itself is unexceptional.

What is the evidence for this claim, and how can such a thing have happened? To draw an analogy for readers more accustomed to reading on this website about the failure of housing provision to meet housing need during the UK housing crisis, in the year between April 2018 and March 2019 there were 213,860 new-build residential properties officially completed in England. Of these, 57,485 were classified as ‘affordable housing. However, only 4,783 of these were for social rent. Affordable housing, therefore, which the average person can’t in fact afford, made up 27 per cent of all new housing, and social-rent housing, the most in-demand housing tenure, made up just 2.2 per cent.

The immediate comparison to these proportions is that new-build residences are roughly numerically equivalent to the 232,708 people tested for SARs-CoV-2 in the UK as of 8 April 2020; affordable housing to the 60,733 people who have tested positive; and homes for social rent to the 7,097 deaths attributed to COVID-19. In remarkably similar proportions to housing provision, positive tests for SARs-CoV-2 make up 26 per cent of all people tested in the UK; and deaths attributed to COVID-19 make up 3 per cent.

However, the analogy I want to make is between how Government-coined terminology has been used to deceive the public about the reality of the crisis — both the housing crisis and the coronavirus crisis. For years now the UK Government, the London Mayor, our local authorities and our media have got away with lying to the British public about what tenure and cost of housing is being built in the UK with billions of pounds of public subsidies and the privatisation of public land by calling half-a-million-pound properties for shared ownership and other unaffordable housing schemes ‘affordable’ — even when that lie only constitutes around a quarter of what is being built. But the immediate reality behind that lie is that just over 2 per cent of all new housing meets housing need.

Even worse than this, just as the figures for homes for social rent completed in the UK do not take account of the number of existing council-rent properties either sold under right-to-buy or demolished by estate demolition schemes, or the number of housing association homes converted from social to so-called affordable rent — meaning the net number of homes for social rent every year is in fact a considerable loss and not a tiny gain — so too the actual deaths as a result of coronavirus disease 2019 are still unknown and not reported in the increasingly alarmist figures produced by the Government and disseminated by the media.

In this respect, the deliberate failure of both Government and media to distinguish between the rate of testing and the rate of infection, giving rise to a hugely exaggerated mortality rate; between positive tests for SARs-CoV-2 and cases in which the tested develop the symptoms of COVID-19, with the former in a ratio of 8-2 or higher to the latter; and between deaths with coronavirus and deaths from it, with the latter constituting maybe 12 per cent or less of the former — parallel the lies they have told about the UK housing crisis.

Until we establish the numerator in this equation by testing everyone in the UK for SARs-CoV-2, announcing that the denominator of 60,733 positive tests gives us a certain percentage of the population infected is mathematically impossible. And since percentages are a mathematical equation, doing so, as the Government is every day, is literally meaningless, and ideologically speaking a form of disinformation — lying, to use a simple word. It is because of this that the US statistician, Nate Silver, the founder and editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight, in an article titled ‘Coronavirus Case Counts Are Meaningless’, describes the UK as doing ‘the worst job’ of all countries in the world of detecting the true number of infected people.

In addition to this lack of testing, the UK Government is also not distinguishing, even within the limited number of tests it has conducted — about 1 in every 291 of the population — between those who have tested positive for SARs-CoV-2 and those who have developed COVID-19, the disease that is caused by novel coronavirus, and which only develops severe symptoms in a tiny proportion of the population, and overwhelmingly in the already ill and elderly. At present, everyone who tests positive is assumed to have the disease, which from an epidemiological perspective is a flat-out lie.

One of the principles of infectiology, according to Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and one of the most referenced scientists in German history, is precisely the distinction made between infection and disease. In his Open Letter to the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, in which he questions the scientific bases to the lockdown of Germany, he writes:

‘An illness requires a clinical manifestation. Therefore, only patients with symptoms such as fever or cough should be included in the statistics as new cases. In other words, a new infection — as measured by the COVID-19 test — does not necessarily mean that we are dealing with a newly ill patient who needs a hospital bed.’

In response to his letter, Dr. Bhakdi’s university e-mail address was reportedly deactivated this week, and only reactivated again after protests.

Given the ongoing lack of information about novel coronavirus — or, more accurately, the ongoing disinformation about it — not only in the UK but across the world, at present it is hard to establish what percentage of those testing positive for SARs-CoV-2 do not develop COVID-19. But in Iceland, which due to its high level of testing has registered the second highest level of infection per capita in the world, and which unlike the UK and most other European countries is testing people not showing symptoms, ‘about half of those who tested positive are non-symptomatic’, and the majority of those with the disease develop only ‘mild, cold-like symptoms’, with only 42 people out of 30,947 tested requiring hospital treatment. Last month the World Health Organisation estimated that, overall, ‘80 per cent of infections are asymptomatic or mild’; while new evidence has emerged this month from China indicating that 78 per cent of coronavirus infections do not result in symptoms.

Finally, and most disruptive of all for our understanding of the seriousness and threat of COVID-19, there is no information from our Government or almost every other government in the world about the actual cause of death of the increasing number of people, most of them in their 70s and 80s, whose deaths are being categorised as ‘corona deaths’. In Germany, the Robert Koch Institute, the federal government agency responsible for disease control and prevention, has even instructed pathologists not to carry out autopsies on bodies officially categorised as ‘corona deaths’. The reason for this extraordinary and unique departure from standard procedure is supposedly the risk of infection to doctors, even though such autopsies are carried out as a matter of course for diseases such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis and PRION diseases. In a letter to Dr. Bodo Schiffmann from a German pathologist who wishes to remain anonymous — presumably for fear of reprisals from the German state or those terrified by the government propaganda — he writes:

‘It is quite remarkable that in a disease that is killing thousands of patients all over the world and bringing the economy of entire countries to a virtual standstill, only very few autopsy findings are available (six patients from China). From the point of view of both the epidemic police and the scientific community, there should be a particularly high level of public interest in autopsy findings. However, the opposite is the case. Are they afraid of finding out the true causes of death of the positively-tested deceased? Could it be that the numbers of corona deaths would then melt away like snow in the spring sun?’

Meanwhile, in the UK as in most countries whose populations are under government-imposed lockdowns, the qualification for a ‘corona death’ on our Government websites is that COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate as a ‘possible’ or ‘contributing’ cause of death, or that the deceased showed symptoms ‘similar’ to COVID-19, or that the deceased tested positive for SARs-CoV-2 before or at the time of death. One has to ask what other life-threatening event justifying the house arrest of over 2.9 billion people across the world would have such a loose definition of what it is we’re supposed to be threatened by.

As a result of thus systemic lack of accurate information, the only reliable indication we have so far of how many official corona deaths actually died as a result of the disease rather than with the virus in their body is from the National Institute of Health in Italy. On 20 March this revealed that, of 3,200 people who had officially died with COVID-19, only 12 per cent of the deaths, 384 people, had a causal relation to the disease. By this calculation, rather than 2.5 per cent of people in the UK testing positive for SARs-CoV-2 before or after dying of COVID-19, the figure is closer to 0.3 per cent. But in reality, since we have only tested 1 in 291 people, and the vast majority of those have been the already ill and elderly people admitted to hospital with severe symptoms of COVID-19, the actual percentage of people infected with coronavirus in the UK — which by now is likely to be a large percentage of us — that are likely to die because of coronavirus disease is likely to be an even smaller percentage still.

Lastly, it’s important to remember that we don’t die of SARs-CoV-2, but of the respiratory diseases it can cause, which is why it overwhelmingly kills the elderly or those with pre-existing health conditions, why the death rates are higher in areas with high pollution or high levels of tobacco smoking, and why it has had hardly any effect on the healthy lungs of young children. We don’t have a vaccine for SARs-CoV-2, just as we don’t have a vaccine for many of the viruses that mutate into new influenza viruses every year; but we do have antibiotics, which kills the bacteria in our lungs that causes the pneumonia. As Dr. Knut Wittkowski explained in his interview:

‘We don’t die of the virus. We die of pneumonia. So, if we have a virus respiratory disease — once the immune system has created antibodies — the antibodies, or the immune system, kills all infected cells, which destroys much of the mucosa. And bacteria can easily settle on that destroyed mucosa, and then cause pneumonia. And it is the pneumonia that is killing people, if it’s not treated.’

Attributing these deaths to COVID-19, therefore, is both diagnostically inaccurate and factually misleading. Coronavirus disease, when the symptoms become severe, can create the conditions in people whose immune systems are weakened or who already suffer from existing health conditions that can lead to pneumonia. Again, this is why deaths attributed to COVID-19 are overwhelmingly among the elderly and/or those with pre-existing illnesses, such as diabetes, cancer or a chronic diseases affecting the lungs, heart, kidney or liver. In confirmation of which, as of 8 April, when the NHS reported that 6,483 people have ‘died in hospitals in England and had tested positive for COVID-19 at time of death’, 5 of them were under 19 years of age; 47 between 20-39; 465 between 40-59; 2,576 between 60-79; and 3,390 of them 80 and over. That means 92 per cent of all deaths in the UK that tested positive for COVID-19 were over 60 years of age, and over half were over 80, the average life expectancy in the UK. No information has yet been released by either the Department of Health and Social Care or its executive agency, Public Health England, about what caused these deaths.

To try to put this in context, according to the Office for National Statistics, which is semi-independent of the Government, in the week ending 5 April last year, 10,126 people died in England and Wales, 8,544 of them were over 65 — 84 per cent of the total — and 1,412 of them died from respiratory diseases. Over the same week this year, according to the National Health Service, 3,373 people in England died who tested positive for COVID-19, and 3,120 of them were over 60 years old — 92 per cent of the total.

At the other end of the age range, 5 children have died testing positive for COVID-19 in English hospitals since March this year. Two were aged 19, one was aged 13, and another, the youngest, was just 5. We know this because their ages were published on the Department of Health and Social Care website and subsequently listed on the Worldometer webpage for UK deaths. In comparison, over the same 5-week period last year, 94 children between the age of 1 and 14 died in England and Wales, though without anything like the attention the former received in the UK press as supposed evidence that COVID-19 can kill anyone. Yes, it can, but so can being in a car accident, which 15-19 years olds have almost double the risk of dying from compared to the general population, without the Government feeling it necessary to prohibit them from getting in the back of a car or crossing the road.

Until even the official deaths with COVID-19 have peaked in the UK we can’t accurately assess the severity of this influenza wave to previous years. However, comparing SARs-CoV-2-positive deaths to overall deaths this year, in the week ending 27 March 2020 — the latest for which the ONS provides statistics — 1,534 people in England and Wales — including those who died outside hospital — died where the underlining cause was respiratory disease. Of these, 539 had COVID-19 mentioned on the death certificate as a possible or contributing cause, or the deceased showed symptoms similar to COVID-19, or tested positive for SARs-CoV-2. The overall death rate for this week was 11,141, compared to an average of 10,130 for the corresponding week over the past five years. In other words, in the third week of official deaths from COVID-19, in both mortality rate and in deaths from pneumonia, the UK has registered around 1,000 additional deaths among the over 65s. 

By projecting this year’s total deaths and deaths from influenza and pneumonia onto the figures for last year, the website InProportion2 has shown not only that deaths attributed to COVID-19 up to 7 April amount to only 20 per cent of the latter, but that the overall deaths this year have not increased compared to the average number of deaths at this point of the year over the last five years as a result of coronavirus. In the chart the author has produced (below), the blue line shows the number of deaths from influenza or pneumonia in 2019; the orange line exactly matching it up to 27 March — the most recent figures available — shows deaths from influenza or pneumonia this year; and the red line shows the deaths in the UK reported ‘with’ COVID-19 up to 7 April. At this scale, the deaths attributed to COVID-19 appear relatively few compared both to the deaths from all causes and to the number of deaths that usually take place in NHS hospitals.

InProportion2

Finally, even with all the caveats to the accuracy of the latest figures, the 6,483 deaths in England attributed to COVID-19 since March 2020, and the 7,097 across the UK reported as of 8 April, have to be compared to the 28,330 excess deaths associated with seasonal influenza in England in 2014-15, the 11,975 in 2015-16, the 18,009 in 2016-17, and the 26,408 in 2017-18. InProportion2 has since published a chart comparing mortality rates in 2020 and 2018 (below), and it shows that, as of 27 March this year, the total number of deaths in England and Wales is significantly less than for the equivalent period in 2018. Moreover, the deaths attributed to COVID-19 in 2020 amount to just 20 per cent of the deaths from influenza and pneumonia in 2018; and, even combined with the projected increase in deaths from influenza and pneumonia this year, the death toll is only likely to draw roughly even.

InProportion2

With all due respect to the families and memories of the 7,000 people who have died this year from pneumonia, some other respiratory disease or as a result of pre-existing medical conditions — some of whose deaths may have been caused or accelerated by coronavirus disease 2019, over half of whom were over the average life expectancy of UK citizens — this is not an epidemic, except insofar as every influenza virus every year is an epidemic.

3. Coronazombyism

So, if coronavirus disease 2019 isn’t a killer epidemic, which all the empirical evidence says it isn’t, what is happening? In January 2014 the Guardian newspaper warned: ‘Britain is dangerously unprepared for a flu pandemic that could kill as many as 315,000 people!’ In September 2017 the Telegraph predicted: ‘NHS braced for worst flu season in history amid fears overcrowded hospitals unable to cope.’ And in November 2018 the Daily Mail tried to terrify us with the news that: ‘More than 50,000 excess deaths were recorded across England and Wales last winter, official figures show!’ Of course, these attempts at scaremongering were no more based in truth than the lies the same papers and every other paper in the UK are printing about the coronavirus now. So why have the latter caught on? Why has the population of the UK been infected with this virus that has turned us into coronazombies, ready to believe everything we’re told by a Government and media that has lied to us repeatedly and increasingly openly over the past twenty years and longer? Why, like zombies in a bad film, are the normally mild-mannered British now ready to tear each other apart for disobeying the newly imposed restrictions to our freedoms? Why are we reacting with accusations of culpability, denunciations to the authorities, threats of divine retribution and zombie-like fury to anyone who dares even to question the Government’s lies?

For dictatorships to work, laws are not enough, as there are never enough police officers to enforce laws that a majority of the working population doesn’t believe in. Historically, totalitarian regimes have relied on the grudges of individuals, on the stoked prejudices of communities, and on the sense of duty of members of society to an abstract notion of a nation or people or religion to police the population. Above all, they have relied on fear. To this end, the Government of the UK and of many other countries is actively encouraging its citizens to inform on each other for flouting the hastily-created laws passed by parliaments or simply announced by Ministers on the back of the media-created panic about coronavirus. When the government tells us to ‘act like you’ve got it, anyone can spread it’, it is also telling us to turn informant.

Just as happened after the assault with a knife on London Bridge last December, when the National Police Chiefs Council offered members of the British public ‘counter-terrorism training’ and casually announced that 350,000 people are already accredited as Counter Terrorism (CT) citizens, so now new legislation is empowering not just police officers but also community support officers to enact laws that have been dictated by ministers — not debated in Parliament, not scrutinised by parliamentary committee, not voted on by our elected representatives in the House of Commons. At this stage of our extraordinarily rapid descent into absolute obedience to whatever regulations the Government imposes on us and whatever lies its media outlets tell us, it is the general population that, in huge numbers, is doing the Government’s work. Whether by spreading lies on social media they haven’t bothered to verify or understand, or by reporting people who disobey the Government to the police, it is ‘The British People’ — as Tony Blair liked to call us when telling the lies that lead us to the Iraq War — that are laying the foundations for governance by dictatorship.

Surprisingly — although nothing surprises me anymore about the political gullibility of the UK population — participating in laying this road to dictatorship are many of the individuals and groups that describe themselves as radical, socialist, anarchist, communist or in some other way independent in their thinking and actions from the ideology of neo-liberalism. Unfortunately — although fortune has nothing to do with it — in their eagerness to turn media lies into a stick with which to beat a completely indifferent Government, they have turned out to be just as susceptible to those lies as everybody else. In this instance, as in so many previous man-made crises, the so-called ‘left’ in this country is doing the work of our right-wing and authoritarian Government. In their warnings against a threat that doesn’t exist, in their lamentations for deaths that are no more numerous than usual, and in their demands for stronger Government measures to curb the virus they are in reality exacerbating, they, too, are infected with coronazombyism.

So what is coronazombyism, besides the title of the film in which we’re all acting out our allotted roles? According to epidemiologists, virologists and microbiologists who have spent a lifetime studying viral epidemics, the current lockdown of our societies and the economic consequences of this are actually increasing the deaths resulting from this new virus: by depriving our health services of workers who have tested positive for SARs-CoV-2, by cancelling operations for life-threatening conditions, by reducing life expectancy in the future for people forced deeper into poverty. In addition, the further reduction in funding for the NHS and the rest of the public sector as an inevitable consequence of our radically shrunken economy, added to the societal and psychological consequences from job losses and business failures, together with the cuts to oversees aid for developing countries justified by a reduced GDP in capitalist economies, will continue to have a negative impact on the health and life expectancy of millions of people for years to come. The Government responses, therefore, and the role of the press and media in framing them for public acceptance and implementation, are not external to, but a part of, the virus. The two are, in a very real and consequential sense, in a symbiotic relation to each other. In this infection of biology by technology, of human consciousness by artificial intelligence, the media virus has initiated a mutation in the coronavirus that has turned it into something far more dangerous than influenza.

Through natural selection, a virus will always ‘choose’, so to speak — although without agency — the host that best allows it to replicate itself in greatest numbers. By keeping most of the Northern hemisphere under house arrest during spring, when seasonal influenza usually ends, governments have turned bodies that would otherwise rapidly produce antibodies to fight off and develop immunity to SARs-CoV-2 into better hosts, extending the presence of the symptomatology of COVID-19 in the population, and preventing us from developing herd immunity on the scale required to stop its replication. In the same way, the artificial intelligence in the algorithms that determine what we see on mainstream and social media exponentially increases the propaganda and lies that tell us what we want to hear: at once frightening us into obedience to new dictates and reassuring us that the Government is in control — but, crucially, requires our help (the revived mantra of every crisis that ‘we’re all in this together’). Both systems, the biological and the technological, the natural and the artificial, reproduce themselves, independently of individual agency, as viral transmission through the body politic — or better, the global host. This is the real, present and future danger of coronazombyism.

The evidence of this is everywhere around us, and in a future article I will look at the legislative consequences for us of coronazombyism. But, as always, it’s to the USA that we should look for the stupidest and most dangerous reaction to the coronavirus. President Donald Trump, with typical military bombast, has declared that the fight against coronavirus is a ‘war’, and put the USA on a war-footing against what he calls a ‘foreign virus’, declaring that the US will ‘defeat the invisible enemy’. So I want to end with a quote from Julian Assange, about whose activities as a journalist and publisher exposing the war-crimes of the USA, whose innocence of accusations of rape invented by Swedish prosecutors under US duress, and whose arrest, incarceration and torture in a British prison, also under US duress, the entire press and media of the UK and US has lied or been silent about for the past decade.

In addition to the life of a man the governments of the US, the UK, Sweden, Australia, Ecuador and many others within the ambit of US imperialism are quite blatantly and even openly trying to kill, one of the greatest concerns about Assange’s extrajudicial imprisonment, torture and trial is the watershed it represents in that chimera of liberal democracies — the freedom of the press. Anyone who has followed the lies on which every war of the Twenty-first Century has been started — in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Syria, in Libya — will know how long it has been since this mythical beast was last spotted; but the openness with which Julian Assange has been imprisoned, tortured and is being tried outside of both UK and international law while the press and media stay rigorously and obediently silent represents a new and, most likely, irreversible sea-change in the relationship between the fourth estate and the capitalist state over which it is supposed to exert a degree of scrutiny on behalf of the public.

There are many other contenders — such as the UK-armed genocide in Yemen, the silence of the UK media about the violent suppression of the Gilets jaunes protests in France, or the anti-semitic slur campaign against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK — but it could be argued that the first manifestation of this new relationship is the transformation of SARs-CoV-2 from a respiratory virus into a global crisis. In an interview with RT in May 2011, when he was still free to do so, this is what Julian Assange said about the assimilation of our press and media, both mainstream and social, into the propaganda arm of the state:

‘One of the hopeful things I have discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past 50 years has been the result of media lies. The media could have stopped it, if they had searched deep enough. If they hadn’t repeated government propaganda, they could have stopped it.

‘But what does that mean? Well, that means, basically, populations don’t like wars, and populations have to be fooled into wars. Populations don’t willingly and with open eyes go into a war. So, if we have a good media environment, then you will also have a peaceful environment.

‘Our number one enemy is ignorance. And I believe that is the number one enemy in everyone: not understanding what is actually going in the world. It’s only when you start to understand that you can make effective decisions and effective plans.

‘Now, the question is, who is promoting ignorance? Well, those organisations that try to keep things secret, and those organisations which distort true information to make it false or misrepresentative. In this latter category, it is bad media. It really is my opinion that the media in general are so bad, we have to question whether the world wouldn’t be better off without them altogether.

‘There are some very, very fine journalists, and we work with many of them, and some fine media organisations. But the vast majority are awful, and so distortive to how the world actually is. The result is we see wars, we see corrupt governments continue.’

I think it would be fair to say that whatever hope Assange once had in the media has now been crushed by 9 years of progressively severe lockdown, first under house arrest in the UK, then claiming political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy, and now in solitary confinement without charge in Belmarsh prison. What hope remains lies with those of us who still have, for the present, the freedom to understand what is happening in the world, to speak the truth about it, and to act on that knowledge, even under the threat of arrest.

Simon Elmer
Architects for Social Housing

Further reading:

Lockdown: Collateral Damage in the War on COVID-19

The State of Emergency as Paradigm of Government: Coronavirus Legislation, Implementation and Enforcement

Manufacturing Consensus: The Registering of COVID-19 Deaths in the UK

Giorgio Agamben and the Bio-Politics of COVID-19

Good Morning, Coronazombies! Diary of a Bio-political Crisis Event

Language is a Virus: SARs-CoV-2 and the Science of Political Control

Sociology of a Disease: Age, Class and Mortality in the Coronavirus Pandemic

COVID-19 and Capitalism

28 Days Later (2002)

Architects for Social Housing is a Community Interest Company (no. 10383452). Although we occasionally receive minimal fees for our design work, the majority of what we do is unpaid and we have no source of public funding. If you would like to support our work financially, please make a donation through PayPal:

perjantai 19. maaliskuuta 2021

31 Reasons Why I Won’t Take the Vaccine

 

The following list was created by the Israeli rabbi Chananya Weissman. Many thanks to MC for the tip.

1.
It’s not a vaccine. A vaccine by definition provides immunity to a disease. This does not provide immunity to anything. In a best-case scenario, it merely reduces the chance of getting a severe case of a virus if one catches it. Hence, it is a medical treatment, not a vaccine. I do not want to take a medical treatment for an illness I do not have.
2.
The drug companies, politicians, medical establishment, and media have joined forces to universally refer to this as a vaccine when it is not one, with the intention of manipulating people into feeling safer about undergoing a medical treatment. Because they are being deceitful, I do not trust them, and want nothing to do with their medical treatment.
3.
The presumed benefits of this medical treatment are minimal and would not last long in any case. The establishment acknowledges this, and is already talking about additional shots and ever-increasing numbers of new “vaccines” that would be required on a regular basis. I refuse to turn myself into a chronic patient who receives injections of new pharmaceutical products on a regular basis simply to reduce my chances of getting a severe case of a virus that these injections do not even prevent.
4.
I can reduce my chances of getting a severe case of a virus by strengthening my immune system naturally. In the event I catch a virus, there are vitamins and well-established drugs that have had wonderful results in warding off the illness, without the risks and unknowns of this medical treatment.
5.
The establishment insists that this medical treatment is safe. They cannot possibly know this because the long-term effects are entirely unknown, and will not be known for many years. They may speculate that it is safe, but it is disingenuous for them to make such a claim that cannot possibly be known. Because they are being disingenuous, I do not trust them, and I want no part of their treatment.
6.
The drug companies have zero liability if anything goes wrong, and cannot be sued. Same for the politicians who are pushing this treatment. I will not inject myself with a new, experimental medical device when the people behind it accept no liability or responsibility if something goes wrong. I will not risk my health and my life when they refuse to risk anything.
7.
Israel’s Prime Minister has openly admitted that the Israeli people are the world’s laboratory for this experimental treatment. I am not interested in being a guinea pig or donating my body to science.
8.
Israel agreed to share medical data of its citizens with a foreign drug company as a fundamental part of their agreement to receive this treatment. I never consented for my personal medical data to be shared with any such entity, nor was I even asked. I will not contribute to this sleazy enterprise.
9.
The executives and board members at Pfizer are on record that they have not taken their own treatment, despite all the fanfare and assurances. They are claiming that they would consider it unfair to “cut the line”. This is a preposterous excuse, and it takes an unbelievable amount of chutzpah to even say such a thing. Such a “line” is a figment of their own imagination; if they hogged a couple of injections for themselves no one would cry foul. In addition, billionaires with private jets and private islands are not known for waiting in line until hundreds of millions of peasants all over the world go first to receive anything these billionaires want for themselves.
10.
The establishment media have accepted this preposterous excuse without question or concern. Moreover, they laud Pfizer’s executives for their supposed self-sacrifice in not taking their own experimental treatment until we go first. Since they consider us such fools, I do not trust them, and do not want their new treatment. They can have my place in line. I’ll go to the very back of the line.
11.
Three facts that must be put together:
  • Bill Gates is touting these vaccines as essential to the survival of the human race.
  • Bill Gates believes the world has too many people and needs to be “depopulated”.
  • Bill Gates, perhaps the richest man in the world, has also not been injected. No rush.

Uh, no. I’ll pass on any medical treatments he wants me to take.

12.
The establishment has been entirely one-sided in celebrating this treatment. The politicians and media are urging people to take it as both a moral and civic duty. The benefits of the treatment are being greatly exaggerated, the risks are being ignored, and the unknowns are being brushed aside. Because they are being deceitful and manipulative, I will not gamble my personal wellbeing on their integrity.
13.
There is an intense propaganda campaign for people to take this treatment. Politicians and celebrities are taking selfies of themselves getting injected (perhaps in some cases pretending to get injected), the media is hyping this as the coolest, smartest, most happy and fun thing to do. It is the most widespread marketing campaign in history. This is not at all appropriate for any medical treatment, let alone a brand new one, and it makes me recoil.
14.
The masses are following in tow, posting pictures of themselves getting injected with a drug, feeding the mass peer pressure to do the same. There is something very alarming and sick about this, and I want no part of it. I never took drugs just because “everyone’s doing it” and it’s cool. I’m certainly not going to start now.
15.
Those who raise concerns about this medical treatment are being bullied, slandered, mocked, censored, ostracized, threatened, and fired from their jobs. This includes medical professionals who have science-based concerns about the drug and caregivers who have witnessed people under their charge suffering horrible reactions and death shortly after being injected. When the establishment is purging good people who risk everything simply to raise concerns about a new medical treatment — even if they don’t outright oppose it — I will trust these brave people over the establishment every time. I cannot think of a single similar case in history when truth and morality turned out to be on the side of the establishment.
16.
This is the greatest medical experiment in the history of the human race.
17.
It is purposely not being portrayed as the greatest medical experiment in the history of the human race, and the fact that it is a medical experiment at all is being severely downplayed.
18.
Were they up front with the masses, very few would agree to participate in such an experiment. Manipulating the masses to participate in a medical experiment under false pretenses violates the foundations of medical ethics and democratic law. I will not allow unethical people who engage in such conduct to inject me with anything.
19.
The medical establishment is not informing people about any of this. They have become marketing agents for an experimental drug, serving huge companies and politicians who have made deals with them. This is a direct conflict with their mandate to concern themselves exclusively with the wellbeing of the people under their care. Since the medical establishment has become corrupted, and has become nothing more than a corporate and political tool, I do not trust the experimental drug they want so badly to inject me with.
20.
We are being pressured in various ways to get injected, which violates medical ethics and the foundations of democratic society. The best way to get me not to do something is to pressure me to do it.
21.
The government has sealed their protocol related to the virus and treatments for THIRTY YEARS. This is information that the public has a right to know, and the government has a responsibility to share. What are they covering up? Do they really expect me to believe that everything is kosher about all this, and that they are concerned first and foremost with my health? The last time they did this was with the Yemenite Children Affair. If you’re not familiar with it, look it up. Now they’re pulling the same shtick. They didn’t fool me the first time, and they’re definitely not fooling me now.
22.
The government can share our personal medical data with foreign corporations, but they won’t share their own protocol on the matter with us? I’m out.
23.
The establishment has recruited doctors, rabbis, the media, and the masses to harangue people who don’t want to get injected with a new drug. We are being called the worst sort of names. We are being told that we believe in crazy conspiracies, that we are against science, that we are selfish, that we are murderers, that we don’t care about the elderly, that it’s our fault that the government continues to impose draconian restrictions on the public. It’s all because we don’t want to get injected with an experimental treatment, no questions asked. We are even being told that we have a religious obligation to do this, and that we are grave sinners if we do not. They say that if we do not agree to get injected, we should be forced to stay inside our homes forever and be ostracized from public life.
This is horrific, disgusting, a perversion of common sense, morality, and the Torah. It makes me recoil, and only further cements my distrust of these people and my opposition to taking their experimental drug. How dare they?
24.
I know of many people who got injected, but none of them studied the science in depth, carefully weighed the potential benefits against the risks, compared this option to other alternatives, was truly informed, and decided this medical treatment was the best option for them. On the contrary, they got injected because of the hype, the propaganda, the pressure, the fear, blind trust in what “the majority of experts” supposedly believed (assuming THEY all studied everything in depth and were completely objective, which is highly dubious), blind trust in what certain influential rabbis urged them to do (ditto the above), or hysterical fear that the only option was getting injected or getting seriously ill from the virus. When I see mass hysteria and cult-like behavior surrounding a medical treatment, I will be extremely suspicious and avoid it.
25.
The drug companies have a long and glorious history of causing mass carnage with wonder drugs they thrust on unsuspecting populations, even after serious problems had already become known. Instead of pressing the pause button and halting the marketing of these drugs until these issues could be properly investigated, the drug companies did everything in their power to suppress the information and keep pushing their products. When companies and people have demonstrated such gross lack of concern for human life, I will not trust them when they hype a new wonder drug. This isn’t our first rodeo.
26.
Indeed, the horror stories are already coming in at warp speed, but the politicians are not the least bit concerned, the medical establishment is brushing them aside as unrelated or negligible, the media is ignoring it, the drug companies are steaming ahead at full speed, and those who raise a red flag continue to be bullied, censored, and punished. Clearly my life and my wellbeing are not their primary concern. I will not be their next guinea pig in their laboratory. I will not risk being the next “coincidence”.
27.
Although many people have died shortly after getting injected — including perfectly healthy young people — we are not allowed to imply that the injection had anything to do with it. Somehow this is anti-science and will cause more people to die. I believe that denying any possible link, abusing people who speculate that there might be a link, and demonstrating not the slightest curiosity to even explore if there might be a link is what is anti-science and could very well cause more people to die. These same people believe I am obligated to get injected as well. No freaking thanks.
28.
I am repulsed by the religious, cult-like worship of a pharmaceutical product, and will not participate in this ritual.
29.
My “healthcare” provider keeps badgering me to get injected, yet they have provided me no information on this treatment or any possible alternatives. Everything I know I learned from others outside the establishment. Informed consent has become conformed consent. I decline.
30.
I see all the lies, corruption, propaganda, manipulation, censorship, bullying, violation of medical ethics, lack of integrity in the scientific process, suppression of inconvenient adverse reactions, dismissal of legitimate concerns, hysteria, cult-like behavior, ignorance, closed-mindedness, fear, medical and political tyranny, concealment of protocols, lack of true concern for human life, lack of respect for basic human rights and freedoms, perversion of the Torah and common sense, demonization of good people, the greatest medical experiment of all time being conducted by greedy, untrustworthy, godless people, the lack of liability for those who demand I risk everything… I see all this and I have decided they can all have my place in line. I will put my trust in God. I will use the mind He blessed me with and trust my natural instincts. Which leads to the final reason which sums up why I will not get “vaccinated.”
31.
The whole thing stinks.

This originally appeared on Gates of Vienna.

maanantai 1. maaliskuuta 2021

Our Default State: Compulsory Vaccination for COVID-19 and Human Rights Law

 from: architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk 

 
Table of Contents
  1. Qualifying Human Rights
  2. Sectioning the Public
  3. Future Legislation
  4. A Living Laboratory
  5. Pathologising Dissent

Addendum: Why did so many German doctors join the Nazi Party early?

On Monday, 14 December, in response to a petition signed by 325,797 people asking the Government ‘to prevent any restrictions being placed on those who refuse to have any potential COVID-19 vaccine’, 6 Members of Parliament debated the issue for just over an hour. At the end, Nadhim Zahawi, since 28 November the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment, repeated word for word the Government’s initial response to the petition on 11 September:

‘There are currently no plans to place restrictions on those who refuse to have any potential Covid-19 vaccine.’

I won’t go into the discussion between the MPs, which was as empty, uninformed and meaningless as all the other debates about coronavirus-justified policy held in Parliament. Indeed, the greater part of the hour was devoted to the MPs promoting the benefits of vaccines, affirming their own intention to take one as soon as it is available, repeating factually inaccurate statements about the threat of the coronavirus and the effects — both known and unknown — of the COVID-19 vaccine, and almost entirely ignoring the petition or the issues it raises. All agreed that compulsory vaccination was not ‘British’ — or ‘Irish’ in the case of Jim Shannon of the DUP — and all were appeased by Zahawi’s bland assurance. No-one questioned what ‘currently’ might mean for the future.

I’m going to take a look myself, therefore, at what that future might be; for the question of whether and how the UK Government will make a vaccine for COVID-19 compulsory has been around almost since this crisis started. On 22 July, in response to an open call by the Joint Committee on Human Rights for evidence on the ‘The Government’s response to COVID-19: human rights implications’, four academics from the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Dr. Lisa Forsberg, a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Faculty of Law, Dr. Isra Black, a Lecturer in Law at the University of York, Dr. Thomas Douglas, a Professor of Applied Philosophy and the Director of Research and Development at the Centre, and Dr. Jonathan Pugh, a Senior Research Fellow, together submitted a response under the same title. Although only 1 of 226 responses published by Parliament, it is this text I want to discuss, for its authors’ extraordinary proposal is that the legislation under which a vaccine for COVID-19 could be made compulsory in the UK is the Mental Health Act 1983.

1. Qualifying Human Rights

Their strategy is to address the justification and proportionality for interference with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) — the ‘right to respect for private and family life’ — entailed by compulsory vaccination, and in particular how it accords, in the Guide on Article 8 issued by the European Court of Human Rights, with Section B, ‘Physical, psychological or moral integrity’, subsections 3, ‘Forced medical treatment and compulsory medical procedures’ and 5, ‘Health Care and treatment’. The authors do this by what they call two ‘parity’ arguments, in which they draw equivalents between powers in already existing legislation and the power to make a vaccine for COVID-19 compulsory.

First, if the restrictions on persons, things and premises known as ‘lockdown’ are compliant with human rights under Sections 45B and C of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and Schedules 18 and 19 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too. They call this the ‘lockdown parity argument’. However, neither the Public Health Act nor the Coronavirus Act grant the Government the power to mandate vaccination. In fact, as the authors point out, Section 45E of the Public Health Act and Schedules 18 and 19 of the Coronavirus Act specifically rule out provisions requiring medical treatment, including ‘vaccination or other prophylactic treatment’. From this the authors conclude that ‘a policy of compulsory vaccination would thus require primary legislation’, which is to say, a new Act of Parliament.

Second, however, if non-consensual treatment under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, (c) ‘for the protection of other persons’, is also compliant with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too. They call this the ‘mental health parity argument’. Under Section 63 of the Mental Health Act, the consent of the patient, even those with the capacity to make decisions, ‘shall not be required for any medical treatment given to him for the mental disorder from which he is suffering.’ This derogates from the common law requirement that individuals must give consent in order for treatment to be lawful. From this the authors conclude that:

‘Mental health law permits the detention of a person for treatment for the protection of others, and permits compulsory medical treatment of a person so detained.’

Now, under Article 8 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights:

‘There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’

The European Court of Human Rights has established that medical treatment without consent constitutes an interference with Article 8, with case law (Pretty vs. United Kingdom, 2002) stating:

‘The imposition of medical treatment, without the consent of a mentally competent adult patient, would interfere with a person’s physical integrity in a manner capable of engaging the rights protected under Article 8(1) of the Convention.’

And since vaccination is defined as medical treatment for the purposes of the Public Health Act, compulsory vaccination is likely to constitute such interference for people who would otherwise refuse.

Article 8, however, is a qualified right, meaning such interference may be justified in pursuit of the aims listed above, which include ‘public safety’, ‘the protection of health’, and ‘the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’. From this the authors conclude that:

‘The most important element of the evaluation whether a measure constitutes a violation of article 8 ECHR is the analysis of its proportionality.’

From this conclusion they develop what they call their ‘strategy’, which is that since interference with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights are ‘commensurable’, it is possible to ‘evaluate the degree of different kinds of interference with human rights on a comparable basis’, including the qualified rights in Article 8 of the ECHR. From this proposed standard for measuring the degree of violation of our human rights that is permissible, the authors jump to a series of assumptions about what they deem comparable. They do this by liberal use of the word ‘seems’:

‘Even accounting for any harms associated with non-consensual administration, the interference with an individual’s private life that compulsory vaccination entails seems proportionate in light of the seriousness of COVID-19 risks and impacts.’

‘A policy of compulsory vaccination seems less burdensome on the interests the ECHR protects than “lockdown”; that is, the degree of interference with bodily integrity entailed in compulsory vaccination seems less than the degree of interference with liberties from lockdown.’

In both these comparisons, the authors judge that forcibly sticking a needle into someone and injecting them with a foreign substance against their wishes is proportionate with the risks and impacts of COVID-19, and less of a burden to the so-enforced public than the loss of our civil liberties under lockdown measures. By this argument, the very extremism and disproportionality of lockdown measures in response to the deliberately exaggerated risk of COVID-19 to the general public becomes the basis for the equivalent extremism of compelling British citizens to take a vaccine against their will for a disease that presents no risk to 99.8 per cent of us, and to an even higher percentage of those under 60 years of age. From this leap of equivalence, the authors are brought to their chilling conclusion:

‘In the event that a policy choice between “lockdown” and compulsory vaccination were coterminous, it would in our view be strange to opt for lockdown over compulsory vaccination. The absence of the legal power to require individuals to undergo vaccination is hard to explain.’

2. Sectioning the Public

After this response was published by Parliament on 21 September, the public response was such that the authors, on 9 November, issued a statement to the effect that their concern was merely to investigate the possible policy options available for making vaccination compulsory under existing legislation, and that they were ‘not endorsing a policy that imposes COVID vaccination in the UK’. As the conclusion in their original response makes plain, this is pure sophistry, issued by collaborators in the implementation of the UK biosecurity state who have been caught in the glare of publicity for their abhorrent proposals. Indeed, they opened their initial response with the statement that:

‘Our chief conclusion is that, as and when a vaccine becomes available at scale, the Government should give serious consideration to compulsory immunisation as a means of reducing the impacts of Covid-19.’

If this isn’t an endorsement I don’t know what is. In reality, the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics is actively promoting compulsory vaccination. On 25 November, Dr. Alberto Giubilini, a senior researcher at the Centre, wrote in the The Conversation that it should be mandatory, with ‘penalties for failure to vaccinate, such as fines or limitations on freedom of movement’; while on 2 December the Centre’s Director, Professor Julian Savulescu, made a case for mandatory vaccination at the Imperial College Union Debating Society. The authors of this conclusion may find it ‘hard to explain’ why the legal power to force rational individuals to undergo medical intervention against their will doesn’t already exist, but the reason they do becomes all too apparent when they go on, in the rest of their response, to challenge the rationality of individuals who refuse to comply with any future policy enforcing the violation of their bodily integrity.

All four authors of this response are involved in research on the ethics of consent to medical interventions, but Dr. Forsberg and Dr. Douglas are also researchers on neurointerventions. The former is currently leading on a project titled ‘Changing One’s Mind: Neurointerventions, Autonomy, and the Law on Consent’; and before that she worked on the project ‘Neurointerventions in Crime-Prevention: An Ethical Analysis’, for which Dr. Douglas, the Centre’s Director of Research and Development, was the lead. The project was funded by the Wellcome Trust — whose CEO, Jeremy Farrar, sits on the board of SAGE — and looked at the ethics of neurointerventions. These are medical interventions that act directly on the brain and alter some of its functions, for example, through drugs administered to attenuate desire in sex offenders, treat addiction for repeat drug offenders or reduce aggression in violent criminals. In particular, the project looked at making such treatments a part of a criminal sentence and — more pertinently for the ethics of making a COVID-19 vaccine compulsory — a condition of parole.

On the one hand, such neurointerventions throw up images of the Beethoven-loving hero of Anthony Burgess’s (and Stanley Kubrick’s) A Clockwork Orange being trained through drugs to associate violence with feelings of nausea; but there’s another, much darker comparison, whose influence on medical ethics was discussed by Giorgio Agamben in his 1995 study of biopolitics, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. At the Doctors’ Trial held in Nuremberg in 1947, German doctors who had compelled prisoners in concentration camps (Versuchspersonen, ‘human guinea-pigs’, drawn initially from camp criminals) to undergo medical experiments, argued that there was an equivalence between their studies and those conducted on prisoners and persons sentenced to death in medical experiments in the early Twentieth Century — and in particular in the USA, the country from which most of the Nuremberg judges came. Not only that, but that the benefit of such tests to German soldiers forced into extremes of cold, altitude, injury, disease or pain to defend their country and its people made them proportionate to the costs to the individuals subjected to such tests — and, indeed, dozens of studies of hypothermia, for example, have since cited their research. ‘From this point of view’, Agamben writes, ‘the inhumanity of the experiments in the United States and in the camps is, therefore, substantially equivalent’.

Equivalence and proportionality have ever been the excuses of dictators seeking to justify the means of their present dictatorship by the purported ends it serves, and these arguments for what the authors of this response euphemistically call the ‘harms’ of compulsory vaccination are no different in kind, if they are in degrees of violence. Behind their claims to address compulsory vaccination as an abstract question of law, the neuro-interventionists at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics are in the line of those doctors and judges who, not so long ago, prescribed chemical castration for homosexuals, lobotomies for social misfits and sectioning for women who didn’t obey their husbands. The exact degree of violence, however, to which the authors of this response are prepared to find equivalence, proportionality and benefit only becomes clear when they go on to argue the second of their parity arguments. This is the equivalence they make between mentally unstable patients unable to consent to medical treatment and British citizens who refuse a vaccine for COVID-19.

Section 3 of the Mental Health Act, they argue, empowers the state to detain a patient suffering from a mental disorder not only for their own protection and the protection of others, but also in order to administer medical treatment for both these purposes. Importantly, Section 63 of the Act permits treatment without consent to persons so detained, ‘even if they possess decision-making capacity’. As Agamben observes, it was this granting of consent, even in the conditions in which its withholding meant continued imprisonment or a sentence of death, that the Nuremberg judges cited as differentiating the ethics of medical trials on prisoners by US doctors from the lack of consent in the concentration camps. The authors of this response 70 years later, however, appear not to be concerned with such fine distinctions, and from this legislative authorisation of medical treatment without consent they conclude:

‘Mental health law provides an example where the law permits — exceptionally — compulsory interference with a person’s bodily integrity for their own protection and that of others when the nature and degree of their circumstances gives warrant.’

It’s important to note that, under Section 63 of the Mental Health Act, treatment without consent is only authorised ‘for the mental disorder from which [the patient] is suffering’, and not for this blanket interference with our bodily integrity assumed by the authors of this response. This too they ignore. But drawing on the case law compiled in the Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and published by the European Court of Human Rights, they argue that this establishes that compulsory treatment in this context may be compatible not only with Article 8 but also with Articles 3, ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. I’ll merely note here the hypocrisy of citing such a right in a country which continues to hold Julian Assange in solitary confinement in a high-security prison, where he is strip-searched several times a day, without a criminal charge having been laid against him under UK law; but from this assumed compatibility of compulsory medical treatment with human rights the authors draw yet another equivalence between their violations:

‘We can argue by analogy from the compatibility with ECHR of compulsory treatment in mental health law to the human rights law compliance of compulsory vaccination.’

Finally, the authors end their response with a statement which encapsulates the medical and legal basis of the biosecurity state:

‘In the context of highly infectious disease, every person is at risk of infection and a potential threat to the life and health of others — a person’s default state is of a nature and degree to warrant immunisation.’

This decisive statement, which asserts that we are born into a defective biological state of which it is the right and duty of the state to cure us, reveals, if nothing else, the religious basis to the UK biosecurity state, in which the Church, as Giorgio Agamben has written in his own commentaries on this crisis, has been replaced by medicine, the ‘fallen’ nature of Christian Man by our newly-deficient biology, and the priests who sold us salvation (or at least purgatory) are now the salesmen of Big Pharma, having exchanged their dog-collars for stethoscopes. According to this biopolitical fundamentalism, our ‘default state’, in both nature and degree, is a threat to the life of others, and must therefore be sectioned, detained, contained, monitored, treated, cured, chastised, immunised, purified and regulated in perpetuity for evidence of apostasy. ‘Stay alert!’ is its ethical motto. ‘Live in fear!’ is its religious instruction. ‘Obey our laws!’ is its threat of retribution.

3. Future Legislation

This is probably the most terrifying document I’ve read in a year of unremitting terrorism. That it has been written by middle-class academics who have accorded themselves the right to judge the degree of the state’s power over the bodies of its citizens only makes it more chilling. In summary and effect, these Oxford doctors of medical law and ethics have advised the UK Government to equate anyone who refuses to take the COVID-19 vaccine voluntarily with someone with a mental health disorder. Under the Mental Health Act, which creates an exception to the common law requirement that medical treatment is only lawful with an individual’s consent, this would allow the Government to enforce ‘treatment’ without our consent, for our own protection and the protection of others. Anyone dissenting would, by definition, be regarded as mentally unbalanced, and therefore subject to enforced vaccination without their consent. This, effectively, answers the question Agamben poses about how compulsory medical experiments are justified by the greater good:

‘If it was theoretically comprehensible that such experiments would not raise ethical problems for officials and researchers inside a totalitarian regime that moved in an openly biopolitical horizon, how could experiments that were, in a certain sense, analogous have been conducted in a democratic country?’

If we believe such sweeping powers in violation of our bodily integrity and albeit qualified human rights couldn’t be made into law under a single Section of the Mental Health Act 1983, we should recall that, as of the time of publication, 80 coronavirus-justified Regulations in violation of our civil liberties have been made into law by an equally contentious interpretation of a single Section, 45C, of the Public Health Act 1984.

As I said, the publication of this response didn’t pass without comment. On 5 November, Rosalind English, a former lecturer on law and genetics at the University of Cambridge and currently part of the editorial team of the UK Human Rights Blog, wrote:

‘Even assuming an entirely safe and effective vaccination, it is something of a step to proclaiming the entire population of a country is on a par with mental health patients who have been deemed enough of a danger to themselves and others to warrant medical treatment under detention. Compulsory interference with a person’s bodily integrity is not something that a democratic society will tolerate without detailed regulations and specialist tribunals in place.’

Unfortunately, the repeated failures of both Parliament and civil society to question, oppose or stop coronavirus-justified restrictions to our human rights and civil liberties throughout 2020 and into 2021 have demonstrated very clearly that we do not live in a democratic society, but rather one that is moving, to use Agamben’s phrase, ‘in an openly biopolitical horizon’. Ms. English, nevertheless, concludes that, notwithstanding the Mental Health Act:

‘Vaccination without consent would be prohibited by the criminal law on assault, and even grievous bodily harm, if the consequences of the treatment are serious.’

In this she appears to take comfort from the conclusion the authors draw from their first parity argument, that new and primary legislation would be required for the Government to make a vaccination for COVID-19 compulsory. But given the almost total acquiescence of both Houses to each and every Government Regulation and Act made into law on the justification of nothing more than unproven assertions about the threat of the coronavirus to public health, can it be long before such primary legislation is brought before Parliament?

This is the legislative context in which Nadhim Zahawi, the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment, told the 6 MPs debating restrictions on those refusing vaccination that there are ‘currently no plans to place restrictions on those who refuse to have a COVID-19 vaccination’. Zahawi, however, has considerable knowledge about the financial benefits of changing legislation. Following the Health and Social Care Act 2012 he helped push through Parliament, Zahawi’s former company, SThree, which specialises in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sector, provided staff for clinical commissioning groups benefiting financially from the privatisation of healthcare services. And in June last year Zahawai founded a new company, Warren Medical Limited, which is registered in his wife’s name and whose two directors are his sons. Doubtless the company will soon find itself awarded numerous untendered Government contracts for vaccine distribution. To this end, just four days after allaying the fears of these 6 MPs, on 2 December, the market research company, YouGov, which was also founded by Nadhim Zahawi, its former CEO from 2005-2010, asked 5,351 adults in the UK:

‘Would you support or oppose the Government making it legally compulsory for all people in Britain to be vaccinated against COVID-19?’

37 per cent of respondents supported this proposal; 44 per cent opposed it; and 18 per cent said they didn’t know. Then on 17 December, YouGov held another survey:

‘And, once a vaccine has been found, would you support or oppose the Government prosecuting and fining people who do not get a vaccination against the coronavirus?’

Interestingly — and worryingly for our future — the results of this survey have not been published on the YouGov website, which presumably did not want the public to know they had even asked such a question. But this is how close we are getting to the UK Government enforcing vaccines produced by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, and any other multinational pharmaceutical company it cuts a deal with, on us and our families.

4. A Living Laboratory

The UK enters the New Year with 68 million people under house arrest and the expansion of the biosecurity state being offered to us — like criminals offered neurointerventional treatment — as a condition of the freedom the Government now holds in its hands like a prisoner governor. This gives it the freedom to do whatever it wants, and it hasn’t been slow to take advantage. The Government has now announced that the vaccination of the UK population will be conducted on a new timetable. Instead of the 3 weeks between the two doses at which the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine has been tested, the Department for Health and Social Care, the four Chief Medical Officers, the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Public Health England and the National Health Service have all agreed that the doses will now be administered 12 weeks apart. This, apparently, is to offset either a shortage of supply or a lack of administrative capacity or both, depending upon who’s making the excuse. Not only that, but with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine authorised by the MHRA for use in the UK as of 30 December, the Government has now suggested, in its Green Book for Vaccinations, that it is ‘reasonable’ for the vaccines to be mixed — with, for example, a first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine and, 12 weeks later, a second dose of AstraZeneca’s or any other COVID-19 vaccine developed by Moderna, which has been authorised for use in the UK on the evening I publish this, or GlaxoSmithKline, or Johnson & Johnson, or some other pharmaceutical company.

Now, first of all, there have been no trials of such a vaccination programme, the results and consequences of which are therefore completely unknown. Even Pfizer, which has a long history of mis-administering their products with fatal consequences, has issued a joint statement with BioNTech declaring that:

‘Pfizer and BioNTech’s Phase 3 study for the COVID-19 vaccine was designed to evaluate the vaccine’s safety and efficacy following a 2-dose schedule, separated by 21 days. The safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules as the majority of trial participants received the second dose within the window specified in the study design. There is no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.’

Indeed, even the World Health Organisation, which more than any other organisation is responsible for inventing the ‘pandemic’ and then authorising the testing-programme that assures its continuation as medically meaningless ‘cases’, has expressed its reservations at the UK’s arbitrary changes to the dosing programme. Perhaps this is just another way to indemnify pharmaceutical companies and the vaccine producers even further from liability for the effects of their hastily fabricated and authorised products. But to suggest that the BioNTech vaccine, which uses experimental mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) technology that encodes the viral protein spikes with synthetic genetic material and has never been approved for use on humans before, is compatible with the Oxford vaccine, which uses adenovirus-vectored technology that carries a gene from the protein spikes that triggers an immune response, sounds at best like medicine bowing to political and economic expediency, and at worst like playing Russian roulette with British lives. Even Public Health England says there is ‘no evidence’ of their interchangeability; while the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control has stated flatly that different mRNA vaccines are ‘not interchangeable’ even with each other, let alone with vaccines using different technologies.

What we do know, thanks to Belgium’s Budget State Secretary, is that the AstraZeneca vaccine (€1.78) is a fraction of the price of either Pfizer’s (€12.00) or Moderna’s (€18.00), which presumably is the Government’s motivation for substituting it as the second dose; and that in the New Year all three are being included in trials to ‘mix-and-match’ their effects. The obvious question to be asked when presented with this witches’ brew is: why are these trials not being conducted, and their long-term effects studied, before we start experimenting on the UK population? At the time of writing, some 1.3 million people in the UK have had their first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, most with the expectation of a second dose of the same vaccine being administered in the time frame in which it was trialed. But the fact the entire UK medical establishment has unhesitatingly signed up to this medical experiment — ‘effectively turning the UK into a living laboratory’, as one US news website described it — is evidence of one thing: that all its bodies and their representatives are now following Government directives rather than any recogniseable scientific procedure, and in doing so have reneged on their Hippocratic oath to care for the best interests and medical safety of the UK population.

5. Pathologising Dissent

In saying so, however, I have identified myself as suffering from ‘vaccine hesitancy’, a term that has gained popular acceptance and use in the UK with worrying ease and speed. Defined by the World Health Organisation as ‘the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines’, behind this branding of a choice as a pathology there lies the additional accusation of a conspiracy, which the authors of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics response are quick to conjure into reality:

‘Vaccine hesitancy in respect of COVID-19 may arise because of the influence of anti-vaccination movements, the uneven demographic distribution of Covid-19 morbidity and mortality risks, or the mistaken belief that COVID-19 immunity has already been acquired.’

All these statements, however, are contestable at best, and at worst deliberately misleading. Reservation about taking a vaccine produced in such an unfeasibility short time by an industry synonymous with corruption and law suits from which only its vast profits allow it to escape prosecution, for a disease to which 0.23 per cent of the population is at risk even after being infected (and only 0.05 per cent of those under 70 years of age), does not immediately qualify the person holding these reservations as the member of an ‘anti-vaccination movement’. And since there is no evidence that any of the COVID-19 vaccines on the market do anything to stop transmission of the coronavirus, questioning why the other 99.77 per cent of the population (99.95 per cent of those under 70) not at risk from infection should take it is not only entirely rational but a question the authors attempt to brush over with this accusation of ‘vaccine hesitancy’. Finally, numerous eminent epidemiologists, immunologists, biochemists and disease modellers from across the world have argued precisely that a large percentage of the population already had or has since acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2, and the authors of this report provide no justification for their casual dismissal of this vastly important point — on which rests the very basis of mass-vaccination, compulsory or otherwise — and the empirical data on which it is based. Indeed, perhaps the greatest reason for what they dismiss as ‘vaccine hesitancy’ is the presence of such unquestioned suppositions in a document by academics and lawyers advocating compulsory vaccination — that, and the seeming ease with which these Oxford doctors of medical ethics jump to the violence consequent upon their recommendations:

‘Should a Covid-19 vaccine become available at scale, we cannot expect sufficient voluntary uptake. It is necessary for the Government to consider a policy of compulsory vaccination, with appropriate exceptions.’

This, unmistakably, is the voice of the petty bureaucrat drunk with the power of the policeman’s truncheon. And theyre not alone. I have written previously about the growing number of medical reports that equate refusal to comply with coronavirus-justified regulations with mental deficiency and sociopathic behaviour. But whether it’s the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics advocating sectioning the UK public to enforce compulsory vaccination, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies terrorising the nation with predictions shown to be deliberately misleading, or the Academy of Medical Sciences justifying the current lockdown of the UK back in July with a worst-case scenario predicting a quarter of a million UK deaths by June 2021 — scientists, academics and lawyers collaborating with an authoritarian government to justify the implementation of a biosecurity state that removes our human rights and civil liberties in order to ‘protect’ us from an imaginary threat is neither new nor normal.

One of the most prominent doctors put on trial at Nuremberg was Wolfram Sievers, the Director of the Institute for Ancestral Heritage (Ahnenerbe), an SS think-tank composed of over 100 professors and scholars whose anthropological theories and medical experiments between 1935 and 1945 were used by the NSDAP Government to justify its eugenicist and biopolitical policies, which like today were implemented under Regulations made without parliamentary approval under a permanent State of Emergency that in Germany’s case lasted 12 years. Prior to his trial, Allied officers produced a report on this Institute in which they concluded with this warning about how even the most educated minds can be used to justify barbarity:

‘It cannot be too strongly emphasised that this was not a crackpot organisation. These were men of the highest calibre, professors from the leading universities, men of the calibre of the atom-splitters and the V-bomb designers, engaged in a project to rewrite the record of the past, in order to influence the future course of history.’[1]

Addendum: Why did so many German doctors join the Nazi Party early?

Extracts from an article by Omar S. Haque, Julian De Freitas, Ivana Viani, Bradley Niederschulte and Harold J. Bursztajn, ‘Why did so many German doctors join the Nazi Party early?’, published in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Vol. 35, Issues 5-6 (September-December, 2012), pp. 473-479.

‘During the Weimar Republic in the mid-Twentieth Century, more than half of all German physicians became early joiners of the Nazi Party, surpassing the party enrolments of all other professions. From early on, the German Medical Society played the most instrumental role in the Nazi medical program, beginning with the marginalisation of Jewish physicians, proceeding to coerced “experimentation,” “euthanisation,” and sterilization, and culminating in genocide via the medicalisation of mass murder of Jews and others caricatured and demonised by Nazi ideology. Given the medical oath to “do no harm,” many post-war ethical analyses have strained to make sense of these seemingly paradoxical atrocities. Why did physicians act in such a manner? Yet few have tried to explain the self-selected Nazi enrolment of such an overwhelming proportion of the German Medical Society in the first place.

‘This article lends insight into this paradox by exploring some major vulnerabilities, motives, and rationalisations that may have predisposed German physicians to Nazi membership. Professional vulnerabilities among physicians in general (valuing conformity and obedience to authority, valuing the prevention of contamination and fighting against mortality, and possessing a basic interest in biomedical knowledge and research), economic factors and motives (related to physician economic insecurity and incentives for economic advancement), and Nazi ideological and historical rationalisations (beliefs about Social Darwinism, eugenics, and the social organism as sacred). Of particular significance for future research and education is the manner in which the persecution of Jewish physician colleagues was rationalised in the name of medical ethics itself. Giving proper consideration to the forces that fuelled “Nazi Medicine” is of great importance, as it can highlight the conditions and motivations that make physicians susceptible to misapplications of medicine, and guide us toward prevention of future abuse.

‘In addition to sheer membership, the systematic planning and actions of physicians greatly contributed to Nazi power and functioning. Possible reasons for the behaviour of these German physicians are often difficult to comprehend in today’s medical and legal environment, where explicit consent from patients and subjects is mandatory, and where any intentional, even accidental, harm inflicted by physicians is publicly condemned and brought before the law.’

‘One theory for Nazi doctors’ abandonment of the ancient and most basic tenets of ethical medicine is that medical doctors tend to have an authoritarian personality, characterised by a strong adherence to rules and a weak ability to control more primitive, “id-driven” impulses. Such personality traits would presumably account for Nazi doctor’s propensity to follow Hitler’s orders with little or no argument. This theory may also explain how these physicians were easily persuaded to follow newly established, barbaric rules of conduct. Other possible explanations have been rooted in theories of practitioner narcissism. They include an inflated sense of self-importance in shaping the future of the nation and a desire for career advancement and public praise.

‘One factor that stands out in the context of current professional and societal concerns is the use of “ethical” claims or considerations to rationalise unethical acts. Thus, this study of Nazi doctors can contribute to ongoing research and education as a case study in the misuse of medical ethics. 

‘Physicians may have been especially predisposed to assent to the authority of the Nazi regime because there were many abstract and practical objectives and orientations that the regime appeared to share with the medical profession. These commonalities included: instilling a culture of conformity and obedience; preventing contamination; and providing a partial solution to the dread of helplessness in the face of existential problems (death, disability, humiliation, loneliness); and an interest in biology, science and research, and biomedical knowledge. In a sense, the medical society had risk factors for acquiring Nazi ideology.

‘Due to the importance of conformity and obedience to authority in medical training and practice, physicians — when contrasted with members of other professions (e.g. lawyers or businessmen) — may have been especially vulnerable to the influence of Nazi ideology. The principle of conformity has always been a central one in medicine, in which great emphasis is placed on following rules and protocols for the delivery of efficient, high-quality health care; equally important is a principle of obedience to authority. It is not unusual for the medical students transitioning into the clinic from his or her preclinical courses — where they “why?” questions are valued and encouraged — to have “why?” questions concerning clinical care be curtly dismissed in the midst of triage-like hospital settings where limited physician time confronts limitless patient needs.

‘The strength of certainty was celebrated by Nazis, while doubt, questioning, and awareness of uncertainty were disparaged as shameful, harmful, and worthy of marginalisation as Jewish cultural artefacts, and so were punished and expunged. 

‘As a means of preventing illness and disability, the Nazi Party framed the extermination of the Jewish population as a health necessity in its own right, a sure way to ward off contamination (and death). Given the core value that prevention of contamination plays across almost all strata of medical practice, this kind of mission would have been particularly salient to members of the German Medical Society. This could even be cast as a way of doing good — a fulfilment of ethical imperatives.

‘A key tactic Hitler employed to simultaneously heighten the perceived threat of contamination and assign responsibility for this threat to one ethnic group was the moralisation of disgust. Made out to be unclean by Nazi propaganda, the Jewish population was framed as a constant danger to the average German citizen’s health, inspiring disgust as an aversion response. A clear divide was therefore formed between the German Jewish “other” as disgusting and dangerous, and the Gentile German “us” as pure and clean. Hitler employed varied tactics to instil this essentialising, discriminatory distinction into the psyche of the German population, thus maliciously recruiting the basic human revulsion of filth and pestilence into a force for dehumanising Jews.

‘Members of the German Medical Society would have been particularly sensitive to the way this threat was framed and propagated, given the all-encompassing mission of physicians to prevent contamination in order to preserve health.

‘At the core of the psychological allure of the Nazi regime was the promise of a form of immortality. The regime’s promise to relieve helplessness and anxiety surrounding mortality overlapped with the very goals that made the medical profession alluring to physicians. Compared to other professionals, physicians may have been most open to this desire to transcend — both in symbolic and literal terms — our species mortality, having already subscribed to the preservation of mortal life through medicine. Saving or prolonging life is, after all, central to medicine’s clinical and ethical mission.

‘Compared to other professional, physicians are more directly dependent on the objective use of scientific information specifically, in the diagnosis and treatment of illness. This interest in and respect for biomedical knowledge and research would have made physicians especially sensitive to Nazi ideology. The Nazi Party motivated its objectives by drawing upon scientific theories that were popular at the time, lending Nazi philosophy the semblance of empirical exactitude. The critical purpose that science plays in all areas of medical understanding and practice would have made Nazism — which imagined itself as a scientific ideology — attractive to medical practitioners, accustomed as they are to benefitting humanity through the application and advancement of scientific research.

‘After the German loss of World War I, there remained a widespread desire for renewed pride. As elites in German society, physicians may have felt this shame more than other citizens at the time. After WWI, physician salaries were very low and unemployment was rising.

‘Many medical practitioners were attracted to Nazism as a means of alleviating the feeling of powerlessness prevalent at the time. The helplessness and grief that were so much the rule in German society after the losses of World War I may have been particularly poignant for physicians, at least some of whom were attracted to medicine by a combination of false promises. One such promise was economic security and empowerment through a “war” on deadly illnesses, particularly the post-WWI scourges of influenza, typhus, and tuberculosis. Such war metaphors and false hopes were integrated easily with interwar-Germany’s capitulation to the historical tendency of depressed nations to mobilise prejudice as a means of relief from feelings of societal impotency.

‘Examining Nazi ideologies through the looking glass of German medical practitioners of that era calls attention to factors that may have made physicians especially open to and interested in Nazi rationalisations. Through a Social Darwinist ideology, Nazism explicitly framed its methods and aims in biological terms. As Hitler’s deputy, Rudolph Hess, claimed: “National socialism is nothing but applied biology”.

‘The Nazi medical experimentation, with its veneer of a research program progressing to benefit the nation — and, by extension, all of humanity — was an easy subsequent step for the regime to implement. A eugenic movement provided a direct means of conducting the kinds of research that could address these problems while cutting the efficiency costs that typically accompany humane treatment of experiment subjects.

‘The self-righteous persecution and marginalisation of Jewish physicians by early Nazi members of the German Medical Society were greatly facilitated by caricaturing Jewish physicians as unethical. This was an important, perhaps essential, move in the process of rationalisation, since a conception of ethics — of doing good — has animated the profession of medicine since antiquity.

‘The prominence of physicians among early joiners of the Nazi Party exemplifies the fact that the defence mechanisms, which prevented post-World War II Germans from fully grasping the reality of the Holocaust, were also operating before Hitler came to power. The German Medical Society was a pre-existing organisation, not one created by the Nazis to serve its ends. Nonetheless, the Society’s involvement in the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was not one of mere acquiescence in the face of coercion. Rather, the Society and the profession it represented were instrumental in both the planning and implementation of the multifarious atrocities that would finally be tallied in the Nuremberg trials.

‘The causes of the brutalities committed by the Nazi doctors with such self-righteous, methodological efficiency— acts that have reverberated for years since — continue to elude many historians and psychologists. Nevertheless, identification and analysis of the vulnerabilities and other factors that fuelled this behaviour can guide us toward prevention of future abuse by highlighting the conditions that make physicians susceptible to misapplications of medical research, medical practice, and medical ethics.  

‘Such analyses also provide vital case studies for teaching medical ethics more effectively. To the extent that we can understand and teach about the context and motives that surrounded physicians’ abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath in favour of Nazi ideology and inhumanity, the teaching of bioethics can cultivate essential practical insight. Such insight is necessary to identify one’s own vulnerability to seductions of abandoning the Hippocratic Oath, as well as principles such as beneficence and respect for the autonomy of the “other”. Alas, such seductions arise with some regularity in the ever-changing biopsychosocial (not to mention economic) landscape of clinical practice.

‘Moreover, thorough analysis of these vulnerabilities and factors provides lessons in what has been termed ethicogenesis, i.e., harm caused under the banner of self-righteousness, in the name of such ethical values as public health or even medical ethics itself. Unimaginable as the medicalisation of genocide may seem today, the perversion of ethical principles is no more confined to the historical past than are demoralisation, economic insecurity, a need to belong and conform, and the search for a quick fix to existential problems. George Orwell’s admonition in 1984 that “He who controls the past, controls the future” is well worth remembering, so that education in medical ethics will not omit the pitfall of invoking ethics themselves as a rationalisation for perpetuating crimes such as those that were enabled by the German Medical Society.’

Simon Elmer
Architects for Social Housing

1. This is a transcript taken from Michael Wood’s documentary film, Hitler’s Search for the Holy Grail, which was first screened in 1999 as a Secret History Special on Channel 4. I have written to Professor Wood to ask for the exact source of the quote, which he reads at the conclusion of the film, and which I have been unable to find in the court documents from the Nuremberg Trials or in the National Archives and Record Administration; but the research notes for the film are in storage and inaccessible under the ongoing lockdown of the UK. He assures me, however, that the quote is accurate. I should make it clear that I did not tell Professor Wood why I wanted to identify this quote, or the comparison I would be making between the role of intellectuals in implementing the respective biosecurity states of the Third Reich and the UK Biosecurity State, and no inference of his support for this thesis should be made.