The Hippocritic Oath

Politics…Pronouns…Protocols…Profits…Power

Twenty years ago I was Director of Resident Education in our department at a major Midwest medical school. One of my jobs was to transform our residency program from one based on “structure” to one based on “competency”.  This was a major change in medical education.  Up until then, residents spent a set time in various areas of ophthalmology (retina, pediatrics, general clinic, etc.).  It was assumed that they would learn what they needed during that set period of time.  However, back then we switched to a “competency” based education program, modifying the “core competencies” of Patient Care, Medical Knowledge, Professionalism, Interpersonal and Communication Skills, Practice-based Learning and Improvement and Systems-based Practice to a career in ophthalmology. Yesterday, October 20, 2022, it was absolutely clear to me that this switch to competency was an utter and complete failure.

Yesterday the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC gave unanimous approval (15-0) to adding the mRNA COVID-19 experimental gene therapeutic agents to the recommended list of childhood vaccinations. All but two of the voting members were academic physicians.  The other two were a nurse and a lawyer.  The mRNA agents in question did not include the usual clinical data of safety and efficacy, but approval was based on a study of 8 rats….

Yesterday I also viewed The Real Anthony Fauci—The Movie, based on the best-selling book of the same name by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  While I pride myself on knowledge of the events of the past few years, I have to admit that I was absolutely flabbergasted at the information contained in this documentary.

Medical education has ignored the REAL core competencies of Critical Thinking, Ethics, Integrity, Courage and Moral Reasoning.  Despite all the warnings of exploding serious adverse reactions, the absolute uncertainty of future even more drastic results of these agents and the out-and-out admission that they do not prevent either the disease or its transmission, medical leadership has gone on record as demanding that children, who have little risk from COVID, be subjected to medical experimentation that admittedly has little if any protective effects on society.

I would urge everyone to view this documentary.  In particular, pay attention to the statements by Vera Sharav, a Holocaust survivor who has devoted her life to protection from the type of experimentation undertaken, in the name of Public Health, during the horrors of the 1930’s and 1940’s: 

https://ahrp.org/

In light of the manner in which the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices made their recommendation, it is important to revisit the Nuremberg Code of Ethics, enacted to prevent the horrors of medical experimentation:

https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/special-focus/doctors-trial/nuremberg-code

[FROM TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NUREMBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS UNDER CONTROL COUNCIL LAW NO. 10. NUREMBERG, OCTOBER 1946–APRIL 1949. WASHINGTON, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949–1953.]

PERMISSIBLE MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS

The great weight of the evidence before us is to the effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Of the ten principles which have been enumerated our judicial concern, of course, is with those requirements which are purely legal in nature — or which at least are so clearly related to matters legal that they assist us in determining criminal culpability and punishment. To go beyond that point would lead us into a field that would be beyond our sphere of competence. However, the point need not be labored. We find from the evidence that in the medical experiments which have been proved, these ten principles were much more frequently honored in their breach than in their observance. Many of the concentration camp inmates who were the victims of these atrocities were citizens of countries other than the German Reich. They were non-German nationals, including Jews and "asocial persons", both prisoners of war and civilians, who had been imprisoned and forced to submit to these tortures and barbarities without so much as a semblance of trial. In every single instance appearing in the record, subjects were used who did not consent to the experiments; indeed, as to some of the experiments, it is not even contended by the defendants that the subjects occupied the status of volunteers. In no case was the experimental subject at liberty of his own free choice to withdraw from any experiment. In many cases experiments were performed by unqualified persons; were conducted at random for no adequate scientific reason, and under revolting physical conditions. All of the experiments were conducted with unnecessary suffering and injury and but very little, if any, precautions were taken to protect or safeguard the human subjects from the possibilities of injury, disability, or death. In every one of the experiments the subjects experienced extreme pain or torture, and in most of them they suffered permanent injury, mutilation, or death, either as a direct result of the experiments or because of lack of adequate follow-up care.

Obviously all of these experiments involving brutalities, tortures, disabling injury, and death were performed in complete disregard of international conventions, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, and Control Council Law No. 10. Manifestly human experiments under such conditions are contrary to "the principles of the law of nations as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and from the dictates of public conscience."

Whether any of the defendants in the dock are guilty of these atrocities is, of course, another question.

Under the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence every defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent of an offense charged until the prosecution, by competent, credible proof, has shown his guilt to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. And this presumption abides with the defendant through each stage of his trial until such degree of proof has been adduced. A "reasonable doubt" as the name implies is one conformable to reason — a doubt which a reasonable man would entertain. Stated differently, it is that state of a case which, after a full and complete comparison and consideration of all the evidence, would leave an unbiased, unprejudiced, reflective person, charged with the responsibility for decision, in the state of mind that he could not say that he felt an abiding conviction amounting to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.

If any of the defendants are to be found guilty under counts two or three of the indictment it must be because the evidence has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that such defendant, without regard to nationality or the capacity in which he acted, participated as a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, or was connected with plans or enterprises involving the commission of at least some of the medical experiments and other atrocities which are the subject matter of these counts. Under no other circumstances may he be convicted.

Before examining the evidence to which we must look in order to determine individual culpability, a brief statement concerning some of the official agencies of the German Government and Nazi Party which will be referred to in this judgment seems desirable

When I graduated from medical school in 1975, I was proud to take the Hippocratic Oath:

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation—to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this Art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!

Yes, this oath is imperfect.  I do not swear by Greek gods.  But the oath recognized a Higher Authority, which I do as well.  As a surgeon, I did perform surgery.  But the essence of the oath remains—the patient is the prime concern. Not politics, not ideology, not even my own financial gain.

Unfortunately, it appears that medicine has moved away from those ideals.  The new “Hippocritic Oath” of the not too distant future  may read something like this:

I swear by the Unholy trinity of Progressive Politics, Big Tech and Big Pharma that, according to my ability, judgment, good fortune or political contributions, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation—to reckon him who taught me this Art as woefully inadequate and probably a proponent of White Supremacy and an unwoke sexist.  I will acknowledge the absolute supremacy of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in all aspects of my care.  I will treat people based upon their political and ideological positions and will have no problem withholding care from those with whom I disagree. After all, they deserve everything they get! They probably never even got vaccinated.   I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of society alone and not the individual patient, and employ  whatever may be  deleterious and mischievous to an individual  if it furthers these goals. I will give deadly medicine to any one if asked, if it is politically necessary and I will unquestioningly support any such counsel directed by a Public Health Agency. They know better than any of us what is right. I will oppose Informed Consent in all matters that run contrary to the interests of Progressive Politics, Big Tech or Big Pharma. I will have no problem in pressuring patients and parents to participate in clinical trials of agents which may have serious side effects if directed to by Public Health “experts”.   In like manner I will certainly give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion if he/ she /they asks for it. I will root out those who oppose any of these ideas as evil proponents of misinformation, or worse, actual spreaders of disinformation.  With virtue signaling and with smug self-righteousness, I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will cut persons laboring under the stone if directed by  an authority in Public Health  and will not leave this to be done by men/women who are actual skilled practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of society, and will not necessarily  abstain from any voluntary act of mischief and corruption, as this may be necessary and is my duty; and, I will above all make sure to address all people by their preferred pronouns. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men/women/whatever, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I may very well divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret only if it supports Progressive Politics, Big Pharma or Big Tech. If not, it can be used to further the message. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life, share in the profits and political spoils from the practice of this business, and be respected (or feared) by important men/women/whatever, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!  May I then fall from favor and be forced to live like all the other peons who think that ethics and morals have meaning. May I suffer character assassination and be cancelled from society.  I will deserve it.

Satire? Of course.  Over the top? Maybe.  But given the present state of medicine, absolutely nothing is beyond the bounds of possibility. Did one ever think that an experimental drug would be unanimously recommended for the nation’s children based on a study of 8 rats?  Especially if the children had no significant benefit from the drug, it had severe known and unknown side effects and society accrued no protection??  At some point, we will hopefully awake from this medical and ethical nightmare and wonder just what the heck we were thinking…..