Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts

The Nuremberg Code (1947)

Permissible Medical Experiments

The great weight of the evidence before us to 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, overreaching, 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 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 probable 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.
For more information see Nuremberg Doctor's Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75.
 
Is this your excuse for having two heads?
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Just now, Slarti said:
2 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

The Nuremberg Code (1947)

Permissible Medical Experiments

The great weight of the evidence before us to 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, overreaching, 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 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 probable 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.
For more information see Nuremberg Doctor's Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75.
 

Is this your excuse for having two heads?

And no brain? 🤡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my masks in the bin as of tonight.

Enough is enough.

If I'm politely asked to leave a shop I'll be happy to leave without kicking up a fuss but I'm done with being ordered around like a schoolchild and I'm done being forced to wear a mask I know for a fact won't protect me or anyone else from covid.

And from my experience in Asda tonight, I'm far from the only person who is done with this shite.

Social distancing? No problem.

Vaccination? Absolutely - done both and my whole family including the youngsters have dates in the next week for their 1st jab.

Agreeing with lockdown as a control measure? Within reason yes. To protect the NHS yes. To prevent even a single death? No. Don't be so bloody childish.

Masks and endless surface cleaning and obsessive hand-washing? To stop an airborne virus spread through microscopic aerosol when 99.999% of our breath in and out goes through the unsealed and unprotected sides of the mask? f**k right off and insult someone else's intelligence - perhaps you'll find someone who lacks the appropriate science background - a Biology teacher for example. :lol:

It's honestly like a weight off. An absolute joy to shop without one tonight.

That'll be my last rant on the subject. It's other people's problem now.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, oaksoft said:

That's my masks in the bin as of tonight.

Enough is enough.

If I'm politely asked to leave a shop I'll be happy to leave without kicking up a fuss but I'm done with being ordered around like a schoolchild and I'm done being forced to wear a mask I know for a fact won't protect me or anyone else from covid.

And from my experience in Asda tonight, I'm far from the only person who is done with this shite.

Social distancing? No problem.

Vaccination? Absolutely - done both and my whole family including the youngsters have dates in the next week for their 1st jab.

Agreeing with lockdown as a control measure? Within reason yes. To protect the NHS yes. To prevent even a single death? No. Don't be so bloody childish.

Masks and endless surface cleaning and obsessive hand-washing? To stop an airborne virus spread through microscopic aerosol when 99.999% of our breath in and out goes through the unsealed and unprotected sides of the mask? f**k right off and insult someone else's intelligence - perhaps you'll find someone who lacks the appropriate science background - a Biology teacher for example. :lol:

It's honestly like a weight off. An absolute joy to shop without one tonight.

That'll be my last rant on the subject. It's other people's problem now.

Who to trust, this buffoon or other researchers who actually TESTED the effectiveness of masks.....................

Meanwhile, a preprint tested the effectiveness of different face masks and compared this with the perceptions of protection among 710 US residents.11 A TSI 8038+machine was used to test N95, surgical, and two fabric face masks on an individual 25 times each. The researchers reported that fabric face masks “blocked between 62.6% and 87.1% of fine particles, whereas surgical masks protected against an average of 78.2% of fine particles. N95 masks blocked 99.6% of fine particles.” But they said that survey respondents tended to “underestimate the effectiveness of masks, especially fabric masks.” The results indicated that “fabric masks may be a useful tool in the battle against the covid-19 pandemic and that increasing public awareness of the effectiveness of fabric masks may help in this endeavour,” the authors concluded.

Edited by faraway saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the non surgical masks are more about behaviour and obviously control

Funny when we all have our Saints face masks on, no one will be able to tell who is giving the abuse

Hey if Hungary can have 65000 in a stadia with no masks , and not even segregation between rival fans then obviously herd immunity is a go go  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DougJamie said:

I think the non surgical masks are more about behaviour and obviously control

Funny when we all have our Saints face masks on, no one will be able to tell who is giving the abuse

Hey if Hungary can have 65000 in a stadia with no masks , and not even segregation between rival fans then obviously herd immunity is a go go  

 

 

There's a massive difference between possible transmission indoors and outdoors.

The paper said, “Transmission in outdoor settings where people are distanced is likely to still be very low risk. However, it remains the case that if people are in close proximity for extended periods in an outdoor setting, there is a potential risk of transmission from the higher concentrations of respiratory particles near to an infected person. It is possible that this close range risk is greater with the B.1.1.7 variant (low confidence).”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, faraway saint said:

There's a massive difference between possible transmission indoors and outdoors.

The paper said, “Transmission in outdoor settings where people are distanced is likely to still be very low risk. However, it remains the case that if people are in close proximity for extended periods in an outdoor setting, there is a potential risk of transmission from the higher concentrations of respiratory particles near to an infected person. It is possible that this close range risk is greater with the B.1.1.7 variant (low confidence).”

Bit early for you to be contradicting yourself isn't it :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Just been down the town, contrary to Oaky, everyone in the chemist, bakers and B&Q were wearing masks, and no one acted like a spoilt child and stomped out.

If he keeps up his childish protest he could starve to death. :lol:

 

Have to say , I found exactly the same here.  
In fact yesterday in B&M my better half and I were commenting on how people had stuck with it . We were very surprised people hadn’t given up en masse.
Between the three or four large stores we visited in the Phoenix centre, I’d say less than a couple of dozen were without masks and most of them seemed to have these exemption lanyards. 
Not exactly a scientific survey but simply my experience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, eastlandssaint said:

So it should be.

It's been crystal clear for weeks that this new "deadlier" Indian variant is nothing of the sort and that vaccinations are the answer.

UK governments need to stop this endless panicking over case numbers and variants.

We should only be re-introducing restrictions in the future if and when the NHS starts to struggle to cope. No other reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 9th of August it is for removal of all covid restrictions subject to 2 conditions.

1) All over 40s are fully vaccinated.

2) A final review.

So, subject to those 2 conditions, no more masks, social distancing indoors or outdoors and a return presumably to football.

Obviously a lot can happen in 6-7 weeks but for the first time we have a specific end goal from Sturgeon.

Not nearly normal.

Not new normal.

Fully normal.

No more Jason Leitch on Off the Ball.

No more Devi Sridhar lying about our vaccines being ineffective against variants.

No more scientists on the TV.

No more bleating about masks.

No more dodgy graphs - from me or anyone else.

No more Biology teachers pretending to be able to understand scientific research.

No more Sue Denim.

No more Karens on facebook wittering on about rule breakers causing Lockdown X.

And this thread can finally go straight into the f**king sea with all the government's scientific advisors and their computational modelling software.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Masks may still be required in certain places.

So 9th of August it is for removal of all covid restrictions subject to 2 conditions.
1) All over 40s are fully vaccinated.
2) A final review.
So, subject to those 2 conditions, no more masks, social distancing indoors or outdoors and a return presumably to football.
Obviously a lot can happen in 6-7 weeks but for the first time we have a specific end goal from Sturgeon.
Not nearly normal.
Not new normal.
Fully normal.
No more Jason Leitch on Off the Ball.
No more Devi Sridhar lying about our vaccines being ineffective against variants.
No more scientists on the TV.
No more bleating about masks.
No more dodgy graphs - from me or anyone else.
No more Biology teachers pretending to be able to understand scientific research.
No more Sue Denim.
No more Karen's on facebook.
And this thread can finally go straight into the f**king sea with all the government's scientific advisors and their computational modelling software.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...