Good day Mr Strunk and others!
I hope you don’t mind if I do a thought experiment using this post. Using the phase “Implied Consent” I assume I am within the law to do so as the post does offer a space for responding.

After reading through this code, I wonder if Dr. Frankenstein had a part in the penning of it? It does appear to me that through word salad this code in essence provides indemnity and immunity to those who wish to conduct experiments.
Let’s begin shall we?

“1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”
The term Voluntary Consent, how this consent is achieved is not defined. . As we now see happening across this planet, scaring the human subjects to death with propaganda can lead to acquiring voluntary consent.
The term absolutely essential is used instead of mandatory. Why?
Looking further into the subject of consent is quite deep in terms of lawfare. Whereby previous agreements or acts result in implied consent.

“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.”

This whole statement is a matter of perspective.
Example: I Billy Gates believe population reduction to be for the good of society, and many prescribe to the same belief. Therefore justifying his experiment.

“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.

How and who determines the anticipated results?

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

Again who determines what is unnecessary?

“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.

A priori, theoretical based or calculated upon a theory.
Whose theory?
Except, perhaps and serve as subjects, non defining of exactly what part one plays in the experiment

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.”

Another opinionated clause.

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

Proper, adequate, are both subjective terms. Again never really defining further what is proper or adequate, that could also be said of the term protect and remote possibility.

“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.

Determining who is scientifically qualified, and what is the highest degree. Determined how and by whom? Arguable for sure. Then the word “should”, when in fact the word mandatory should have been used.

“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.”

What comes into mind, ending the experiment, there is no regard to how it is ended or what happens to the subject harmed.

“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.”

All terms and conditions are subjective to whoever is the judge.

I appreciate you taking the time to take a deeper look into how certain phrases, words, how when and where they are used can make a huge impact on what is really being said.
What I’m seeing is the use of these vague terms without proper definition or reference gives the latitude of whoever the Powers that be dejeur can determine the adherence too or not to the subjective standards in the terminology.
We now have seen this play out over the past 4 years in our department of Justice, FBI and quite frankly in all aspects of governance.

So Mr Strunk, going back to your position, your subjective reasoning, opinion, and perspective, of rule 5 is a matter of interpretation of a theory and really the deciding factor that matters is who in power is standing in judgement at the time.

Please set me straight if you feel I’m misinterpreting what I see as Word Salad. Have a wonderful day everyone!

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

🔘FIRST Lenin statue unveiled in West Germany following legal battle
https://youtu.be/mj6jeBPC7yA

How Dumb can the ‘educated’ be ??? .. GM pot being handed out to street-gangs has done its job. Throw in a little Adderal and you’ll believe anything. …

Seems CCP-China is slated to become their new capitol as things unravel elsewhere. Shanghai-ed is where H*llary moved her interests a few years ago. Might even find John McCain’s remains there too ..lol. — tls

Exhaustive study of peer reviewed research, verified statistics on dissent on fascist lockdown, social distancing isolation, contact tracing paranoia and harmful mandatory voodoo vaccination by conflict of interest puppets.

Excellent 15 minute summary at Still Report >

https://youtu.be/J3B3bHAwRIo