COVID Insanity and McMaster University

or How to destroy the integrity of an Academic Institution.

Apr 08, 2022

Some Housekeeping

Let us brush up on our medical and medical-research ethics. As early as the Hippocratic Oath (and surely medical ethics predates the Hippocratic oath) ethics has been at the heart of the practice of medicine.

There is a simple reason for this: if doctors and medical practitioners or medical institutions (both private and public) behave unethically, then there is a danger that the entire medical establishment will lose credibility.

Welcome to medical ethics during the COVID era.

The ethics of the current medical establishment have authorized the following policy harms. It must be repeated ad nauseam: Covid Policy is the greatest policy disaster in human history. The partial list below highlights the enormity of the disaster:

Rise in suicide and suicidality
Rise in mental health issues, depression, and anxiety
Rise in Obesity
Rise in drug and alcohol abuse
Rise in overdoses from drugs and alcohol
Rise in rape, incest and sexual violence
Rise in sex trafficking
Rise in slavery
Rise in domestic violence
Rise in divorce
Rise in poverty and homelessness
Rise in negative outcomes from preventable diseases
Rise in negative outcomes from COVID vaccines
Lowering of academic achievement
Increased harm against marginalized communities
Lowering in speech, emotional and cognitive development among children
Lowering in credibility in health, governmental and social instituions
Violations of civil and human rights (mobility rights, religious rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the employment of medical apartheid)
Rise in social division
Rise in crime (murder and robbery)
Rise in economic discrimination
Rise in misinformation (on all sides)
Rise in familial fragmentation
Rise in media malfeasance
Rise in propaganda and nudging
Rise in Pharmaceutical and Governmental collusion
Rise in bankruptcy
Rise in hate speech
Increased failure of small businesses, restaurants, and cafes
Rise in increasingly authoritarian STATES
Rise in increasingly authoritarian technologies like Digital IDs and vaccine passports (vaccine passports are ALREADY a Chinese style social credit system)
Negation of culturally important events like art festivals, communal events, music, parades, and national events
Rise in violations of informed consent through coercive measures such as job loss and social exclusion.

These policy harms are a direct outcome of a profound failure in medical ethics. Find below some standard descriptions of medical oaths and medical ethics. This sort of information is hardly ever addressed during the COVID era. The only thing that matters now: mRNA vaxxines. By the end of this essay the policy of mRNA vaxxine mandates can only be supported by the most wild-eyed and irrational among us.

Note on nomenclature:

*Vaccine: a medical intervention which provides immunity from a disease.

*Vaxxine: a medical intervention that is employed like a vaccine, but does not provide immunity from a disease nor stops transmission.

Medical Oaths of Ethics Through Time

Hippocratic Oath

I swear by Apollo Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture.

To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the Healer’s oath, but to nobody else.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets.

Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I break it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me. (Translation by W.H.S. Jones).

The Prayer of Maimonides

Almighty God,

Thou has created the human body with infinite wisdom. Ten thousand times ten thousand organs hast Thou combined in it that act unceasingly and harmoniously to preserve the whole in all its beauty the body which is the envelope of the immortal soul. They are ever acting in perfect order, agreement and accord. Yet, when the frailty of matter or the unbridling of passions deranges this order or interrupts this accord, then forces clash and the body crumbles into the primal dust from which it came. Thou sendest to man diseases as beneficent messengers to foretell approaching danger and to urge him to avert it.

Thou has blest Thine earth, Thy rivers and Thy mountains with healing substances; they enable Thy creatures to alleviate their sufferings and to heal their illnesses. Thou hast endowed man with the wisdom to relieve the suffering of his brother, to recognize his disorders, to extract the healing substances, to discover their powers and to prepare and to apply them to suit every ill. In Thine Eternal Providence Thou hast chosen me to watch over the life and health of Thy creatures. I am now about to apply myself to the duties of my profession. Support me, Almighty God, in these great labors that they may benefit mankind, for without Thy help not even the least thing will succeed.

Inspire me with love for my art and for Thy creatures. Do not allow thirst for profit, ambition for renown and admiration, to interfere with my profession, for these are the enemies of truth and of love for mankind and they can lead astray in the great task of attending to the welfare of Thy creatures. Preserve the strength of my body and of my soul that they ever be ready to cheerfully help and support rich and poor, good and bad, enemy as well as friend. In the sufferer let me see only the human being. Illumine my mind that it recognize what presents itself and that it may comprehend what is absent or hidden. Let it not fail to see what is visible, but do not permit it to arrogate to itself the power to see what cannot be seen, for delicate and indefinite are the bounds of the great art of caring for the lives and health of Thy creatures. Let me never be absent-minded. May no strange thoughts divert my attention at the bedside of the sick, or disturb my mind in its silent labors, for great and sacred are the thoughtful deliberations required to preserve the lives and health of Thy creatures.

Grant that my patients have confidence in me and my art and follow my directions and my counsel. Remove from their midst all charlatans and the whole host of officious relatives and know-all nurses, cruel people who arrogantly frustrate the wisest purposes of our art and often lead Thy creatures to their death.

Should those who are wiser than I wish to improve and instruct me, let my soul gratefully follow their guidance; for vast is the extent of our art. Should conceited fools, however, censure me, then let love for my profession steel me against them, so that I remain steadfast without regard for age, for reputation, or for honor, because surrender would bring to Thy creatures sickness and death.

Imbue my soul with gentleness and calmness when older colleagues, proud of their age, wish to displace me or to scorn me or disdainfully to teach me. May even this be of advantage to me, for they know many things of which I am ignorant, but let not their arrogance give me pain. For they are old and old age is not master of the passions. I also hope to attain old age upon this earth, before Thee, Almighty God!

Let me be contented in everything except in the great science of my profession. Never allow the thought to arise in me that I have attained to sufficient knowledge, but vouchsafe to me the strength, the leisure and the ambition ever to extend my knowledge. For art is great, but the mind of man is ever expanding.

Almighty God! Thou hast chosen me in Thy mercy to watch over the life and death of Thy creatures. I now apply myself to my profession. Support me in this great task so that it may benefit mankind, for without Thy help not even the least thing will succeed.

The Geneva Declaration

At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:
• I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
• I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
• I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity;
• The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
• I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
• I will maintain by all the means in my power the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
• My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;
• I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race,sexual orientation, social standing, or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
• I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
• I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
• I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.

Medical Oath for the Imperial College of Medicine

Now, as a new doctor, I solemnly promise that I will to the best of my ability serve humanity—caring for the sick, promoting good health, and alleviating pain and suffering.

I recognise that the practice of medicine is a privilege with which comes considerable responsibility and I will not abuse my position.

I will practise medicine with integrity, humility, honesty, and compassion—working with my fellow doctors and other colleagues to meet the needs of my patients.

I shall never intentionally do or administer anything to the overall harm of my patients.

I will not permit considerations of gender, race, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, nationality, or social standing to influence my duty of care.

I will oppose policies in breach of human rights and will not participate in them. I will strive to change laws that are contrary to my profession's ethics and will work towards a fairer distribution of health resources.

I will assist my patients to make informed decisions that coincide with their own values and beliefs and will uphold patient confidentiality.

I will recognise the limits of my knowledge and seek to maintain and increase my understanding and skills throughout my professional life. I will acknowledge and try to remedy my own mistakes and honestly assess and respond to those of others.

I will seek to promote the advancement of medical knowledge through teaching and research.

I make this declaration solemnly, freely, and upon my honour.

Research Ethics and WHO Strategic Preparedeness, Readiness and Response Plan to End the Global COVID-19 Emergency in 2022

Ethics is used a single time in WHO readiness and response plan to end the pandemic:

Building trust in global science

Trust is fundamental to the success of research and science. Building that trust among publics, communities, policymakers, and scientists must be integral to how we develop our research. Research priorities in this area should include:

• Public health and social measures and their impact;

• Methods for the effective management of infodemics

• Placing communities at the centre of health emergency

readiness and response

• IPC research

• Research ethics during epidemics and pandemics

What are Research Ethics? (see link for source material below)

Deontological ethics

One of the most influential and familiar approaches to ethics is deontological ethics, associated with Immanuel Kant (1742-1804). Deontological ethics hold certain acts as right or wrong in themselves, e.g., promise breaking or lying. So, for example, in the context of research, fraud, plagiarism and misrepresentation are regarded as morally wrong in themselves, not simply because they (tend to) have bad consequences. The deontological approach is generally grounded in a single fundamental principle: Act as you would wish others to act towards you OR always treat persons as an end, never as a means to an end.

From such central principles are derived rules or guidelines for what is permitted, required and prohibited. Objections to principle-based or deontological ethics include the difficulty of applying highly general principles to specific cases, e.g.: Does treating persons as ends rule out physician-assisted suicide, or require it? Deontological ethics is generally contrasted to consequentialist ethics (Honderich, 1995).

Consequentialist ethics

According to consequentialist approaches, the rightness or wrongness of an action depends solely on its consequences. One should act in such a way as to bring about the best state of affairs, where the best state of affairs may be understood in various ways, e.g., as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain or maximizing the satisfaction of preferences. A theory such as Utilitarianism (with its roots in the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) is generally taken as the paradigm example of consequentialism. Objections to consequentialist ethics tend to focus on its willingness to regard individual rights and values as “negotiable.” So, for example, most people would regard murder as wrong independently of the fact that killing one person might allow several others to be saved (the infamous sacrifice of an ailing patient to provide organs for several other needy patients). Similarly, widespread moral opinion holds certain values important (integrity, justice) not only because they generally lead to good outcomes, but in and of themselves.

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics focuses on moral character rather than action and behavior considered in isolation. Central to this approach is the question what ought we (as individuals, as scientists, as physicians) to be rather than simply what we ought to do. The emphasis here is on inner states, that is, moral dispositions and habits such as courage or a developed sense of personal integrity. Virtue ethics can be a useful approach in the context of RCR and professional ethics, emphasizing the importance of moral virtues such as compassion, honesty, and respect. This approach has also a great deal to offer in discussions of bioethical issues where a traditional emphasis on rights and abstract principles frequently results in polarized, stalled discussions (e.g., abortion debates contrasting the rights of the mother against the rights of the fetus).

An ethics of care

The term “ethics of care” grows out of the work of Carol Gilligan, whose empirical work in moral psychology claimed to discover a “different voice,” a mode of moral thinking distinct from principle-based moral thinking (e.g., the theories of Kant and Mill). An ethics of care stresses compassion and empathetic understanding, virtues Gilligan associated with traditional care-giving roles, especially those of women.

This approach differs from traditional moral theories in two important ways. First, it assumes that it is the connections between persons, e.g., lab teams, colleagues, parents and children, student and mentor, not merely the rights and obligations of discrete individuals that matter. The moral world, on this view, is best seen not as the interaction of discrete individuals, each with his or her own interests and rights, but as an interrelated web of obligations and commitment. We interact, much of the time, not as private individuals, but as members of families, couples, institutions, research groups, a given profession and so on. Second, these human relationships, including relationships of dependency, play a crucial role on this account in determining what our moral obligations and responsibilities are. So, for example, individuals have special responsibilities to care for their children, students, patients, and research subjects.

An ethics of care is thus particularly useful in discussing human and animal subjects research, issues of informed consent, and the treatment of vulnerable populations such as children, the infirm or the ill.

Casuistry or case study approaches

The case study approach begins from real or hypothetical cases. Its objective is to identify the intuitively plausible principles that should be taken into account in resolving the issues at hand. The case study approach then proceeds to critically evaluate those principles. In discussing whistle-blowing, for example, a good starting point is with recent cases of research misconduct, seeking to identify and evaluate principles such as a commitment to the integrity of science, protecting privacy, or avoiding false or unsubstantiated charges. In the context of RCR instruction, case studies provide one of the most interesting and effective approaches to developing sensitivity to ethical issues and to honing ethical decision-making skills.

Strictly speaking, casuistry is more properly understood as a method for doing ethics rather than as itself an ethical theory. However, casuistry is not wholly unconnected to ethical theory. The need for a basis upon which to evaluate competing principles, e.g., the importance of the well-being of an individual patient vs. a concern for just allocation of scarce medical resources, makes ethical theory relevant even with case study approaches.

Applied ethics

Applied ethics is a branch of normative ethics. It deals with practical questions particularly in relation to the professions. Perhaps the best known area of applied ethics is bioethics, which deals with ethical questions arising in medicine and the biological sciences, e.g., questions concerning the application of new areas of technology (stem cells, cloning, genetic screening, nanotechnology, etc.), end of life issues, organ transplants, and just distribution of healthcare. Training in responsible conduct of research or “research ethics” is merely one among various forms of professional ethics that have come to prominence since the 1960s. Worth noting, however, is that concern with professional ethics is not new, as ancient codes such as the Hippocratic Oath and guild standards attest (Singer, 1986).

The End of Medical Ethics at McMaster University

Dear Members of the McMaster Community,

McMaster’s approach to the COVID pandemic is continuing to evolve as Ontario’s health restrictions ease. We wanted to share as early as possible the changes that will take place at the end of the winter term.

As of May 1, the University will pause its vaxxine policy and masking requirement for the spring and summer terms. We are able to take this step, which allows us to align with government requirements, because of the respect that people across the University have shown to each other by getting vaccinated and wearing masks (read the science on masking here and watch this).

We extended many of our precautions through the winter term as part of our ongoing commitment to health and safety. These measures included maintaining our mask requirement and vaxxine policy beyond the province’s timeframe. These decisions have helped support the return to campus and have provided a more stable environment for students, staff, and faculty.

While these measures will be paused, surgical masks will continue to be available on campus and everyone is encouraged to continue to wear masks indoors, especially in classrooms, the libraries, crowded spaces, or close workspaces.

The Daily MacCheck will no longer be required as of May 1, but anyone experiencing COVID symptoms should not come to campus or a McMaster facility.

The vaxxine policy, which has been in place since October 2021, will be paused as of May 1 until the end of the summer term. However, students, faculty, and staff are encouraged to make sure they are fully vaxxinated, including booster shots, and to ensure that their MacCheck vaxxination status is up to date. For those who have received their booster dose, MacCheck will offer the option to upload this additional vaxxination information beginning in early April.

Keeping your vaxxinations updated and having proof of vaxxination makes our campus and community safer and will help to ease any disruption that any future changes in the pandemic may cause.

If pandemic circumstances and public health advice shifts and government requirements change, we may need to quickly re-instate a mask requirement and a vaxxine policy. Resumption of a vaxxine mandate would mean that access to campus is limited to those who are vaxxinated. This would impact the ability for students to complete fully in-person courses, and employees may not be able to attend University property and could be subject to other outcomes based on their vaccination status. We will continue to work with McMaster “experts” as we manage this next stage of the pandemic.

McMaster faculty, staff, and learners may need to attend other organizations and institutions, such as Hamilton Health Sciences, that will continue to have their own COVID policies and protocols and these need to be followed.

As we head towards the end of the winter term, our sincerest thank you to everyone who has worked hard to keep campus safe and to support the transition back to Mac. It hasn’t been easy and the past two years of pandemic continue to impact the health, well-being, and mental health of many in our community. We encourage anyone who needs assistance to reach out to the support services McMaster offers.

It is wonderful to have our students, faculty, and staff back in-person. We want to thank McMaster community members for their cooperation and patience as we continue to navigate the COVID pandemic.

Sincerely,

David Farrar
President and Vice-Chancellor

Susan Tighe
Provost and Vice-President (Academic)

Vaxxine Mandates at McMaster University

Effective October 18, 2021:

• Community Members who answer “No” or “Prefer Not to Answer” will only be permitted to attend University Property, or continue attending their off-campus worksite or study site, if they have received an exemption from the University and comply with any other measures that the University determines to be necessary to protect community health and safety. This will include ongoing rapid antigen testing and may include other safety measures. Exempt Community Members who have not completed the educational session must do so to attend University Property.

• Community Members who are not Fully Vaxxinated will not be granted access to University Property or allowed to continue attending their off-campus worksite or study site, even if their site permits such access, if they have not requested an exemption or their exemption request has been denied. Such individuals may be required to un-enroll or take a temporary unpaid leave of absence. These safety measures will be assessed as the situation progress and may, in certain circumstances, result in termination of employment.

• Similarly, exempted Community Members who are unable or unwilling to comply with the University’s required measures will not be granted access to University Property or allowed to continue attending their off-campus worksite or study site, even if their site permits such access. These safety measures will beassessed as the situation progresses and may, in certain circumstances, result in termination of employment.

Rationalizing the Irrational

McMaster’s vaxxination policy only makes ethical sense if the following suppositions are true.

The vaxxine must provide immunity.
Vaxxination stops transmission of the disease (or least reduces transmission to that of a flu or common cold).
Vaxxination stops infection.
The disease in question must have a significant rate of death or serious outcomes among those infected. (.08 percent of the global population in a two year period has died with/from COVID, while a global population increase of 1.7 percent in each of the last two years has occurred, or 162,000,000 people).
The institutions that are demanding a mandate are governed by moral and ethical agents, who have shown themselves to be credible and responsible actors, not only with respect to the pandemic, but in all facets of governance.
A vaxxine mandate accounts for differences in risk assessment among individual groups.
A vaxxine mandate follows the protocols of medical oaths of office and the ethics of medical research.
The vaxxine in question cannot cause harm, or the harm must be so rare that it can hardly be measurable or predicted. The vaxxine harm is per se. It is not to be understood in terms of a comparable harm: Harm of infection versus Harm of vaxxine. If a vaxxine causes harm (and the Pfizer document dumps in addition to VAERS have shown that they cause significant harms and death in a not insignificant number of healthy people), then it cannot be mandated.
The vaxxine in question must be properly tested as to safety and efficacy, and all information with respect to the safety and efficacy profile of the vaxxine must be known and understood. Or to put it another way, you can’t tell everyone that two shots are safe and effective and grant immunity, and then every four months push for another shot, after another shot, after another shot. Such a public health policy is no longer a policy, it is simply haphazard guessing and incoherent hope.

None of these stipulations have been met. Not a single one. While the data are clear that the vaxxine does reduce severe COVID, hospitalization, and death, this reduction is conditioned on one’s individuated risk analysis. The vast, vast majority of students, staff and faculty at McMaster are not in the risk categories of those who are most in danger from a severe COVID reaction (ie over 65 years of age with 2 or more comorbidities). The disease is not equitable.

That McMaster gestures to re-implementing the vaxxine mandate in the Fall is a serious problem. It shows that McMaster’s “experts” neither understand how the vaxxine functions nor who is most at risk nor have a grounding in proper medical ethics. The policy is so irrational that it calls into question the entirety of the academic mission at McMaster. If one can judge anything from a current Reddit thread on a massive COVID outbreak on campus currently underway (an outbreak that cannot be blamed on those evil unvaxxed), it is clear that a significant portion of the student population have been the victims of the unethical application of Medical “nudging” employed en masse throughout the COVID era. They need a real cure for COVID.

What would a proper policy look like at an Academic Institution? The answer to this is simple: it would rely on the ethical mandates of informed consent. This means that no coercion or discrimination or violation of human rights can be employed to compel vaxxination.

Now we see some rather LowIQ thinking that explains away medical coercion in terms that are simply sophistic and highly immoral. We hear this sort of thinking all the time: “no one is forcing you to get vaxxinated! But choices have consequences. You simply must lose your job or career, and be barred from civil society and have your mobility rights stripped away! AND we can call you a misogynist and racist and someone with unacceptable views who is taking up space! And you might lose custody of your child too!”

Unfortunately, what I have just wrote emblematizes a significant population of Canadians. I shudder even to inhabit in my imagination their moral and ethical universe.

The problem with this sort logic is the following: It is no doubt the case, for example, that making one’s employment or ability to travel contingent on vaxxination (whatever that means anymore) are coercive. By their very nature they are coercive. The medical choice is no longer one based on whether or not a person wishes to undergo a medical treatment in and of itself, it becomes a choice between a medical treatment and your career/job/livelihood/constitutional rights etc. The latter is an entirely different kind of choice than the former. It no longer is a medical choice, although the outcomes of that choice may be a medical treatment. People who make this argument fail to see that they are being compelled to make a tiered choice between two different things entirely, forced on a person by an employer who is using a power differential to compel a behaviour, rather than a singular choice (yes or no) on a single medical treatment. If we just replace job loss with “hand” or “foot” loss, we can see the implicit coerciveness in the “choice.”

Coercion negates informed consent.

Don’t get me wrong; anyone who wants to take the vaxxine should be allowed to take the vaxxine. I would never mandate that someone cannot take the vaxxine. On the flip side, it is a profound and socially deleterious policy to impose a vaxxine mandate for THIS vaxxine, for THIS disease, and under the authority of such poor leadership and governing bodies. I wouldn’t trust the likes of Trudeau, Tam or Farrar to give me a foot rub, let alone to trust what they have to say about this precise medical intervention, especially after Pfizer was forced to release this information on April 1st (you’re a fool not to read it).

Moving Forward

There is only one pathway forward when confronted by institutions of higher learning that have been corrupted by unethical medical agents.

Sue them.

Sue each and every one of them.

Start a GoFundMe or GiveSendGo or a FundRazr

Raise funds.

Sue them.

Force them to confront their own unethical hubris.

Scientism has consequences.

This is exactly what students at Ryerson are doing.

Join their law suit.

It is time we reestablish a proper moral and ethical paradigm based on scientific truth and rigorous debate.

Recontextualizing Covid

Discussion about this post