Skip to content
Alliance for Human Research Protection
  • About
    • Mission Statement
    • Board of Directors
    • Distinguished Advisory Board
    • Honor Roll–Exemplary Professionals
    • Contact
    • Subscribe to the AHRP Mailing List
    • Donate
  • News
    • Eugenics / Bioethics
    • Medicalized Racism
    • Immoral Experiments
    • Clinical Trials
    • Corrupt Practices
    • Safety Hazards
    • Children Victimized
  • Medical Ethics
    • Nuremberg Code
    • Informed Consent
    • Research Integrity
    • Conflict of Interest
  • Medical Atrocities
    • Before Nuremberg
    • Nazi Medical Atrocities
    • Japanese Medical Atrocities
    • U.S. Cold War Experiments
      • Operation Paperclip
      • US Soldiers-GuineaPigs
      • Radiation Experiments
    • CIA-Mind Control
    • Torture Experiments
    • WWII Updates
  • Current Controversies
    • Coronavirus
    • Unethical Experiments
    • Concealed Data
    • Informed Consent Waivers
    • Vaccine mandates
  • Vaccines
    • Unsafe Vaccines
    • Vaccine mandates
    • Wakefield Controversy
Alliance for Human Research Protection

Alliance for Human Research Protection

Advancing Voluntary, Informed Consent to Medical Intervention
  • About
    • Mission Statement
    • Board of Directors
    • Distinguished Advisory Board
    • Honor Roll–Exemplary Professionals
    • Contact
    • Subscribe to the AHRP Mailing List
    • Donate
  • News
    • Eugenics / Bioethics
    • Medicalized Racism
    • Immoral Experiments
    • Clinical Trials
    • Corrupt Practices
    • Safety Hazards
    • Children Victimized
  • Medical Ethics
    • Nuremberg Code
    • Informed Consent
    • Research Integrity
    • Conflict of Interest
  • Medical Atrocities
    • Before Nuremberg
    • Nazi Medical Atrocities
    • Japanese Medical Atrocities
    • U.S. Cold War Experiments
      • Operation Paperclip
      • US Soldiers-GuineaPigs
      • Radiation Experiments
    • CIA-Mind Control
    • Torture Experiments
    • WWII Updates
  • Current Controversies
    • Coronavirus
    • Unethical Experiments
    • Concealed Data
    • Informed Consent Waivers
    • Vaccine mandates
  • Vaccines
    • Unsafe Vaccines
    • Vaccine mandates
    • Wakefield Controversy

Board Members’ works

07. 2020. COVID19: Three Bits of Science That CDC, Fauci and FDA Forgot, and One They Would Like to Forget , James Lyons-Weiler

07. 2020. A Novel Approach to Treating COVID-19 Using Nutritional and Oxidative Therapies , David Brownstein , Science, Public Health Policy & the Law

06. 2020. Gresham's Law and the Covid Pandemic , Jacob Puliyel , Sunday Guardian (India)

06. 2020. WHO trial using potentially fatal hydroxychloroquine dose--according to WHO consultant , Meryl Nass

05. 2020. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Corrupt, coordinated assault managed by WHO on an inexpensive and effective treatment / Nass , Meryl Nass

03. 2020. Coronavirus Pandemic: Is It Time to Wind Down the Rhetoric? , Jacob Puliyel , The Wire

03. 2020. An important proposal that ameliorates our lack of protective equipment and spares both patients and healthcare workers , Meryl Nass , Anthrax Vaccine

02. 2020. Proposed School Exclusion Bad for America’s Kids, Doctors and Educators Say , Jennifer Margulis

02. 2020. Education: An Open Letter on Exemptions , Edward F. Fogerty, III

02. 2020. Protecting Yourself from Covid-19 , Meryl Nass

02. 2020. The Jig Is Up , Richard Moskowitz

06. 2019. Truth in Research Labelling , John Noble, Jr. , Indian Journal of Medical Ethics

04. 2019. Missing, hidden and destroyed adverse event data. Who vaccinates? , Meryl Nass

03. 2019. Whither Cochrane? , Meryl Nass , Indian Journal of Medical Ethics

03. 2019. A sample of vaccine and injectable medication tragedies in the US during my lifetime , Meryl Nass

03. 2019. The Skinny on Pertussis, Vaccines and Enforced Mandates , Meryl Nass

03. 2019. My testimony on vaccine exemptions to the Maine joint Education and Cultural Affairs Committee , Meryl Nass

03. 2019. Indisputable: CDC is not making prudent vaccine recommendations , Meryl Nass

03. 2019. OP-ED: Why Americans don’t trust vaccine makers , Meryl Nass

01. 2019. Challenging The Promotion Of Antidepressants For Non-Severe Depression , John Noble, Jr. , Alain Braillon, and Joel Lexchin, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia

More from our board

Tom Koch

Tom KochTom Koch PhD, is among the best known, most prolific writers you’ve probably never heard about. An ethicist, writer, and researcher specializing in the care of the fragile, he holds a multi-disciplinary PhD (medicine, ethics/philosophy, geography) from the University of British Columbia. In Toronto he serves as a medical ethicist and consultant specializing in issues of chronic care as well as the study of the environmental and social determinants of endemic and epidemic disease.

His more than 15 books and 300 articles include the first books on elder care from the perspective of the caregiver. Beginning with Mirrored Lives (1990), he pioneered the use of narrative writing in gerontology. He was also the first to write extensively on the use of electronic data and public information. In medicine and medical cartography he is an authority on the history of maps in medicine and community health (Cartographies of Disease, 2005; Disease Maps: Epidemics on the Ground (2010)).

Thieves of VirtueAs a medical ethicist he is the author of both The Limits of Principle (2005) and Thieves of Virtue: When Bioethics Stole Medicine Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2012. Koch is unflinching in his support for the Hippocratic Oath — “First, do no harm” — which, within bioethics circles, such a position is positively reactionary!

Below, Koch debunks the expertise of bioethicists; in Thieves of Virtue, he debunks “lifeboat ethics”, a false paradigm of scarcity which bioethicists apply to healthcare:

“Bioethicists are everywhere these days, commenting on abortion, euthanasia, and health policy. They people hospitals, major research centers, and advise governments. We need them, bioethicists tell us, because the old ethics of medicine won’t serve in the new world of advancing medical science and technology. They call that the “Georgetown Mantra,” the principle justification for their professional existence.

Their primary training is in philosophy, not biology, genetics, or medicine. Most are generally untutored in either social science or statistics. Bioethicists rarely work with patients. . . Since the expertise of bioethics is supposedly founded on an ethicists’ familiarity with philosophical methods and arcane texts, why think they have any expertise that may enlighten us all in the face of complex choices of care, of life and death?”

The foundation myth of bioethics, the “demi-discipline’s” self-professed raison d’etre is at best inadequate if not demonstrably false. Its grounding lies not, as bioethicists insist, in a robust ethic of care necessitated by new science and a failed Hippocratic sense of duty and care. Instead its origins and purpose demonstrably rest upon its service to the neoliberal, postmodernist economics that made health a commodity rather than a service.

Governments like those of Ronald Regan needed a way to say health care was an expense to be limited, a cost to be reduced. Bioethics provided the means by which officials could justify “rationalizing” the care of persons to fit the cost-cutting goals of government and, not coincidentally, to promote the needs of business.

Ethicists have been a guest in the house of medicine,” wrote Prof. Mark Kuczewski, a former president of the American Society of Bioethics and the Humanities, “and in order to survive in that environment have had to align themselves with money and power.” Bioethics isn’t about ethics or philosophy, truth or the “right,” but . . . money and power.

Koch points out that from Plato through Kant ethicists were critics; Until bioethics, the role of the ethicist was that of the outsider, the critic of the powerful, arguing for the needs and dignity of each of us within the communities we inhabit. Ethicists were never cheerleaders for money and power — as bioethicists are. Furthermore, Koch makes the point that bioethicists disregard the needs and rights of the vulnerable. He makes the point that while insisting they are champions of “autonomy,” and personal choice, the choices they propose are restricted, and often they willingly sacrifice the individual and his or her choices where those choices seem inconvenient, costly, or merely different.

Thus bioethicists promote a kind of consumerism — which is disastrous for both the patient and the medical professional who seeks to practice on behalf of patients. Bioethicists have reduced the patient-in-need to a health consumer whose care (as a “consumer”) depends, in large part, on his or her monies. As dangerously, some and perhaps many bioethics promote a eugenic present and future, pruning the human tree, as “rational” by which is meant cost efficient. . .

Read more…The Failure of a Bad Idea, Huffington Post.

Alliance for Human Research Protection
All rights reserved to AHRP 2020
Scroll To Top