Discover more from Tessa Fights Robots
"Science wars—How much risk should soldiers be exposed to in military experimentation?"
A bioethical justification for throwing people under the bus :(
Non-voluntary informed consent
I was working on something and stumbled upon this stunning 2015 paper that lays out the concept of “non-voluntary consent” to being experimented on.
In this case, the context for the non-voluntary consent is military service, and the premise is as follows:
Biowarfare is increasingly taking the place of traditional combat
Soldiers have already agreed to the risk of being killed
And yeah, it is good to get the soldier’s “informed consent” but it can be non-voluntary consent
Just like that, uttered under one breath: “Non-voluntary informed consent.” The concept is so upside-down that think it’s impossible to say “non-voluntary informed consent” with a straight face without letting go of a little piece of your soul.
And because there has been a big psychological push since 2001 for treating regular citizens as “soldiers” and pawns of the security state, it is not tremendously surprising what happened to “informed consent” in the past three years, where they told us:
“Yes, you have the right to refuse the COVID injection but it means that you’ll probably lose your job, can’t enter many public spaces, and the corporate hypnotists on television, masking as journalists, will do their best to ensure that you will also be ostracized by as many loved ones as possible, so that it’s really-really-really hard to resist the temptation of giving informed consent.”
Anyway, back to the 2015 paper about experimenting on soldiers:
With the threat of biological war becoming a more and more distinct possibility, there is a growing need for vaccines and cures for diseases. As warfare moves from the battlefield to the laboratory, the military must adapt its tactics in order to preserve national security. At the moment, soldiers consent to the risk associated with combat, but with the changing nature of war, the need may arise for soldiers to put themselves at risk not only through combat, but also through scientific experimentation, in order to produce vaccines or cures and ultimately maintain national security. By allowing soldiers to trade risk on the battlefield with risk in the laboratory, deeper research can be made into diseases and biological agents, and this would therefore lessen the threat of biological war or terrorism.
A hypothetical plot, written in 2015:
Imagine that we are 15 years into the future. Terrorism has moved from ‘things that go bang’ to the use of highly sophisticated technology such as the internet and biological weapons. Terrorists can now use readily accessible DNA technology to create novel or modified viruses and unleash them at multiple sites at once, as is depicted by the film Twelve Monkeys (though in that case it was a psychopathic scientist with a high security clearance).
These terrorists have created a genetically modified strain of Ebola that is spread by respiratory droplets. It is as infectious as flu, though with an 80 per cent lethality. They release this at 15 crowded airports, shopping malls, and sports stadiums in the USA. Within weeks, hundreds of thousands have died. It is projected it could wipe out 90 per cent of the US population.
This is not a war for soldiers—it is a war for scientists. The race is on to find a cure or a vaccine. Human subjects are required. But in this war, soldiers could play a role—as participants in experiments of very high risk to develop cures or vaccines. Should soldiers be used in this kind of research and what level of risk should soldiers be exposed to in order to protect national security?
In an insightful paper, Mehlman [bio] and Li argue that the traditional civilian ethical principles that govern the research use and application of genomic technology are insufficient to regulate military uses. They argue that the values of military life are different to civilian life. Citing Anthony Hartle's Moral Issues in Military Decision Making, they agree with Hartle that ‘“freedom, equality, individualism, and democracy” are the “core American [civilian] values”’. But for the military they are ‘“honor”, “duty”, and “country”.’
Mehlman and Li do believe that consent should still be sought from soldiers. Indeed, it is a part of US Department of Defense policy to require consent. However, they question whether consent can be voluntary [emphasis mine].
Soldiers already consent to take part in a lethal occupation. To protect soldiers against excessive risk, they could be allowed [allowed!!!] to trade risk on the field for risk in the laboratory, keeping total risk stable. That is, they could be granted leave from field duty to take part in similarly risky research, as conscientious objectors, as the Seventh-Day Adventists described by Mehlman and Li were allowed to do. For example, if the risk of death of a combat soldier is 1n, they could have combat reduced to pose a risk of 1/2n, and take part in research with a 1/2n risk of killing them.
While I am at it, I would like to unapologetically share my two cents about modern war.
Throwing people under the bus to “feed” the proverbial vampires is a perfect example of human sacrifice
Let us stop with pointing fingers and blaming the “pagan” cultures (a conversation for another time but blaming pagans is a result of a stunningly successful multi-century propaganda campaign by the theological Faucis of the day, and “paganus” in Latin simply means a “rural dweller,” a hands-on demographic that always been a sore thumb in the eyes of tyrants, and the Romans tyrants were no exception to the rule).
If we want to talk about unprecedented human sacrifice and its priests, we can look no further than modern wars and the people with significant, respectable titles who initiate those wars in order to kiss the smelly, wrinkly buttocks of their controllers—and perhaps in hopes of receiving some of the loot as a reward.
Honorable competition—competition with the respect for the spirit—is a part of human creative interaction (like, kids competing in soccer or boys fighting and giving each other bleeding noses). I am not an expert in combat but I suspect there used to be a lot more honor in wars when the people starting them had to fight in person and risk their own lives. And—speaking of the “pagan” cultures—this is how most of our ancestors approached war for millions of years (true!)
Not today though. The wars that are happening today are sheer disgrace and an act of remote vampiring. Individual soldiers on the ground (some pure-hearted, some messed up, but all brave) get sacrificed to the rotten scam, devised by rotten individuals with rotten goals.
And yes, I feel strongly about it because I am disgusted with the principle of vampiring. I don’t care what suit a vampire is wearing, how respectable he or she may pretend to be: a vampire is a vampire, and we really shouldn’t allow them to have any influence on us with their treacherous talking points.
I abhor the choice of the individuals in high chairs pulling the strings of war. I abhor them for philosophical reasons and because of my love for my family members who gave their youth to vampire-manufactured wars. For what?!!!!! For what?!!!!! So that the dark individuals in positions of power compete with each other?!!!! What horrible treachery it is.
I love my family with my total heart—with my total heart—they inspire me to pray for massive love to come and cleanse us from all the suffering, from all the confusions—and to make us beautifully whole, the way we were supposed to be.
And so, going back to the disgraceful idea of experimenting on soldiers, this is not a new disgrace, this is an incremental disgrace—and I hope that as many people as possible snap out of relating to any “leader” pushing for war. Modern wars are a disgrace, and those starting them formally are little helpers of the proverbial vampires— not an honorable spiritual position to be in regardless of the temporary social elevation and financial gain.
Shame on them. Shame on them. Yes, shame on them, and may they lose all influence on us in every way.
Pre-COVID experiments on U.S. soldiers.
Experimentation on American soldiers (and civilians, to be honest) didn’t start in 2020. Just a few examples:
Tens of thousands of troops were used in testing conducted by the U.S. military between 1922 and 1975. As one Army scientist explained, the military wanted to learn how to induce symptoms such as "fear, panic, hysteria, and hallucinations" in enemy soldiers. Recruitment was done on a volunteer basis, but the details of the testing and associated risks were often withheld from those who signed up.
Many of the veterans who served as test subjects have since died. But today, those who are still alive are part of a class action lawsuit against the Army. If they're successful, the Army will have to explain to anyone who was used in testing exactly what substances they were given and any known risks. The Army would also have to provide those veterans with health care for any illnesses that result, in whole or in part, from the testing.
And then there is this (the image is followed by a PDF).
I am going to end the story with my old song.
Note to readers: If you are in the position to do so, I encourage you to become a paid subscriber or donate. I love you in any case, but it helps A LOT. Thank you from my heart for your support!
Tessa Fights Robots is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.