Nuremberg, Covid, and Anthropology: Never Again

Today, August 20, 2022, marks the 75th anniversary of the end of the trials of medical professionals at Nuremberg. Central principles and fundamental rights were enshrined as a result of the trials, which were then encoded in international law, domestic laws, and the codes of ethics followed by institutional review boards in US universities, the tri-council policy statement in Canada, and the codes of ethics of Anthropology associations. Nuremberg was a foundational event.

Inconvenient Parallels

Maleficent and dishonest commentators in regime media “roll their eyes” at any mention of “Nuremberg” in the present, as if Nuremberg belongs to a separate time, place, and experience—far away and long ago—and as if Nuremberg did not inscribe basic ethical principles that are meant to be transported across a wide range of activities involving humans. As the live event commemorating the anniversary unfolded today, Jewish speakers like Vera Sharav, a medical ethicist and Holocaust survivor, plus an Israeli doctor, noted how German regime media likened those attending the event to the Nazis (!). This has to be the most perverse, abusive inversion that one can imagine—clearly a case of projection. I can think of no Nazi who would celebrate the demolition of Nazi institutions, Nazi laws and practices, and the Nazi state. Nevertheless, some ironically named “Antifa” activists showed up at the event—ironic because their name ought to match their actual practice (as they have repeatedly shown): Pro-fascist (Profa). Others ritually balk at any association drawn between the Canadian regime and the Nazi regime, despite the parallels and exact matches so numerous to ignore that they will have to occupy a separate article. Indeed, one can draw identical parallels and duplicates between the “sanitary” policies of the Nazi Health Security State, and the current Health Security State that dominates. It is not surprising that the authorities—who must and will be held to account and brought to justice—should feel so threatened by those making these parallels, that out of desperation their merest retorts degenerate to inane juvenilia: “No, you are!”. Other responses are more clever, more defensive, trying to evade the worst outcomes from prosecution: hence the CDC’s recent reversal of some of its key guidelines.

The Nuremberg Code in Anthropology

This question of parallels and the continued relevance of Nuremberg, has profound and inevitable implications for anthropology itself.

Why? Because the very Nuremberg Code (pdf) was critical in the formation of anthropological ethics. While initially formulated to govern the practices of biomedical researchers, the Nuremberg code and its basic principles soon governed any science which involved research with human subjects. To take one current example, the University of Illinois’ Office for the Protection of Research Subjects explicitly credits the Nuremberg Code at the very outset of its statement. The same is true of Yale University’s office of Human Subjects Protection, and many others. When it came to opposing US anthropologists’ engagement with the military, David H. Price stated to the Chronicle of Higher Education:

“Ethics and research have always come out of interactions with the military in the social sciences. That’s where all of our ethics codes come from. There were no professional ethics codes codified until after World War II, and it was really the Nuremberg trials that produced the first human research ethics codes. Those came up with very basic standards about meeting voluntary informed consent…”.

The Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK also lists the Nuremberg Code among its ethics resources. There is no denying that the Nuremberg Code is foundational to the development of anthropological ethics themselves.

“In the fall of 2019, I was a professor of ethics and ancient philosophy; I taught students critical thinking + the importance of self-reflection, how to ask good questions and evaluate evidence, how to learn from the past and why democracy requires civic virtue.

“Fast forward to September 16, 2021 when I received a “termination with cause” letter after I questioned, and refused to comply, with my employer’s vaccine mandate. I was dismissed for doing exactly what I had been hired to do. I was a professor of ethics questioning what I take to be an unethical demand. You don’t have to look very hard to see the irony”.—Dr. Julie Ponesse

Informed Consent, First and Foremost

First and foremost, the right to informed consent stands out as the critical ethical point of Nuremberg. Some have laboured away at trying to force understanding of informed consent as conditional upon the performance of experimentation—and thus cannot be applied to mandatory “vaccination” in the present (“because the vaccines are not experimental”). This is both false and illogical. It is illogical because anthropological fieldworkers do not engage in medical experimentation as such, and yet the Nuremberg-derived principle of informed consent still applies. Nobody in Anthropology argues that “informed consent” does not apply because what we do is not experimental. The assertion is also based on a plain, easily disproven falsehood: that the gene therapies are not experimental. The most basic definition of “experimental” involves the trial of a new product which has not yet been finalized. The mRNA gene therapies that are the subject of “vaccine” mandates in North America and elsewhere, are currently undergoing a general human trialand those trials do not end until next year. (The CDC was supposed to be monitoring safety signals, but reportedly has not kept up to date.) Indeed, the FDA itself indicated that Pfizer had yet to complete 13 safety trials, some of which do not end until 2025. These investigational trial products are thus only authorized for “emergency use” (which inevitably brings up debate about the real nature of this “emergency” and whether the term is warranted).

As I have already pointed out elsewhere, we are dealing with experimental gene therapies that are not vaccines: “First, because the CDC changed its definition of ‘vaccines’ in August of 2021, to accommodate the new products developed for the market, which did not meet the previous CDC definition of ‘vaccine’. Second, because these are called gene therapies in the pharmaceutical industry itself; by the FDA they are formally referred to as investigational new drugs; in the legal arena, they are classed as prototypes by Pfizer itself. Note also that ‘emergency use’ investigational new drugs are defined by the FDA itself as ‘experimental’. We can thus call these products experimental gene therapies to be brief, all complaints notwithstanding”.

I do not even need to go into the volumes of publications that have established serious problems with the safety trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna (they are not conducted by any independent medical review agency), and the large and still growing evidence of injuries and deaths, as well as the failure of the products to achieve even their most minimal of promised tasks (and, no, they were never tested for preventing hospitalizations or deaths). My worry here is much narrower and more specific.

Where have anthropologists stood when it came to the violation of everyone’s informed consent, including their own? If bodily autonomy is to mean nothing, what does it then mean to be human? This cuts to the very core of the purpose of their mission.

Anthropologists—given their resounding silence—have possibly been deceived, distracted, or confused by all the talk about “safe and effective,” “experimental,” “unsafe and inadequate,” etc., and may have forgotten that the basic principle that should concern them is that of free, voluntary, and prior informed consent.

Anthropologists Had Every Reason to be Concerned

Anthropologists had every reason to be concerned when they witnessed their own universities mandating injection, requiring personal disclosure of private medical information, in an effort to clearly scare and/or blackmail students, staff, and faculty into taking these shots lest they be expelled, suspended, or fired. Everything about that should have sounded deafening alarm bells that something was wrong, very wrong.

They should have been equally alarmed about what was happening across their society, across a wide array of occupations, professions, and social settings. Locking down, “until a vaccine is ready,” already implied that the shots would be made mandatory: “because the only way we get back to normal is if everyone gets vaccinated”. This was the common refrain repeated ad nauseam from officials around the world. The implied threat, the blackmail, and the extortion were baked in from the outset. No shots? Lockdowns continue, or perhaps the lockdowns are narrowed down like a fence around a particular group of persons—the “unvaccinated”—who faced restrictions on mobility, and who were denied the right to access education, the right to work, the right to unemployment assistance, and in some countries were also denied the right to medical care, and to top it all off, were subject to fines and detention. The “unvaccinated” were thus all placed in a virtual camp. In Canada, some discriminatory measures remain in place. Never in our lifetimes have we witnessed a designated category of human beings treated in such a manner. Never in our universities have we witnessed students physically dragged out of classrooms, by police, in front of the professor and other students, because of that student’s health status.

Anthropologists could have been worried not just by the level of coercion, that deprived consent given freely and voluntarily, but they could have also grown shocked by the denial of information necessary for making an informed decision. They should have been perplexed at the level of censorship, specifically directed against doctors and nurses around the world, with tens of millions of videos and posts deleted, and accounts terminated. They would have noted that the very premise of censorship is a denial of information. They should have been outraged to see segregation practiced right in front of their very eyes, and done in their name. They might have grown worried when the absolute affirmations from medical authorities began to fracture and crumble—whether it was Fauci asserting that “vaccinated” people become “dead ends” for the virus; that “vaccination” builds a “brick wall” against Covid-19; that the “vaccines” would give us “herd immunity”; or then, sure, “breakthrough infections” are a statistical probability, but hey come on now. Anthropology professors and students might have asked questions, when after the second, third, fourth, and maybe the fifth jab, and after all the masking, they still got infected and got sick. And besides, who here can list the known long-term effects of the mRNA shots? Anyone? No: because it was neither informed nor was it consent.

The Silence is Final

Instead, what have we noticed? Total silence from the anthropological community during humanity’s worst moment since World War Two.

Over a decade ago, until about nine years ago, this site was part of a collective effort to confront anthropological support for counterinsurgency and other military and intelligence missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa. At the time, scores of US anthropologists stood up and spoke out about the violation of informed consent by anthropologists employed by the military to conduct fieldwork in war zones. They revisited and revised their code of ethics. They wrote and signed declarations. They called for professional commissions of inquiry. They set up task forces. They organized symposia and numerous conference panels. They were keynote speakers. They wrote dozens of articles and books. They launched websites. They spoke to the media. They wrote for the media. They wrote in alternative media. They appeared in documentaries.

But now? Silence. Total, absolute, and utterly damning silence.

Anthropologists might flatter and assure each other that what they do is still valid, credible, and an “important contribution”. You will see them clearly unperturbed, carrying on business as usual, getting ready for the start of the semester. And to be sure not all anthropologists stayed silent here in Canada—counting myself, I can count all those who spoke out in some fashion, on four fingers. I am not addressing the four of us; I am addressing the other 600+ professors.

Anthropology has not just failed itself, and the world, yet again. It’s not just another failure. No, not at all. This failure is the final one. This is the final, irreparable, irreversible failure. There is no coming back from this. The silence of anthropologists is a clear sign to everyone that, from this period onward, nothing produced by university-based anthropologists has even a shred of credibility, nothing, on any topic. It’s over. You’re finished. You did it to yourselves.

There it is: we are now in the time of Zero Anthropology. What is “zero anthropology”? This is it. It is the time when hegemonic anthropology collapses and degenerates, betrayed by its own silence on the issues anthropologists said mattered most. As we commemorate Nuremberg 75, we can realize where anthropology stood, lest we forget. Never again.

I have no doubt that COVID-19 is the greatest threat to humanity we have ever faced; not because of a virus; that is just one chapter of a much longer, more complex story; but because of our response to it. And that response is, I believe, earning its place in every medical ethics textbook that will be published in the next century. What can we do? As Canadian chemist and author Orlando Battista said, ‘An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it’. In our world, politeness, ‘getting by,’ ‘flying under the radar’ seem to be the goals. Gone are the 60s revolutionaries, gone are the patriots of early America. We are the victims—and the soldiers—of a pandemic of compliance. But compliance is not a virtue; it isn’t neutral, and it certainly isn’t harmless”.—Dr. Julie Ponesse


I will close with three videos relevant to the moment:


Join us in Telegram, on Substack, and on Rumble

13 thoughts on “Nuremberg, Covid, and Anthropology: Never Again

  1. Douglas Smith

    Greetings ~

    As a erstwhile anthropologist I take some pride in having contributed to a project that seeks to pillory the totalitarians who oppressed us in the course of the so-called pandemic.

    CAWS, our community advocacy group, plans to have cast a bronze commemoration plaque of the kind one sees at historical sites, dimensioned on the order of, 12″ x 14″.

    Centred on the plaque, the key wording will be as follows:

    IN HONOUR OF THOSE ‘VACCINE’ REFUSERS

    WHO ENDURED SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

    DURING THE COVID-19 MASS FORMATION

    2020 – 2023

    Our intention is to post an ad in the local newspapers soliciting donations for the plaque. Repeated at two week intervals, our ad may include the iconic thermometer, illustrating the yawning gap between funding goal and contributions to date.

    Following Mattias Desmet’s reasoning (“The Psychology of Totalitariansim”), this tactic alone might achieve the purpose of irritating a goodly portion of the citizenry back into a state of relative wakefulness.

    If, though, we actually accumulate sufficient funds, then we will need to materialize the text in solid bronze. Then, with plaque in hand we will approach various churches, commercial outlets, and benevolent associations, asking in all earnestness if they would be so kind as to mount our memorial in a permanent location visible to the general public.

    Readers of Zero Anthropology are of course welcome to attend the unveiling ceremony.

    One love

    1. Henry

      RE Dr Desmet, “his” mass formation story line and his “teachings”…

      The official framing of the mass formation (or mass psychosis) “phenomenon” is misleading and wrong in terms what the whole true reality is. The false hope-addicted psychologists and their acolytes want you to believe this is “just some temporary occasional” madness by the masses when it is but a spike of a CHRONIC madness going on for aeons with “civilized” people — read “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room –The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid “Phenomenon”” …. https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html

      One of these mainstream psychologists who have been spreading this whitewashed reality, Dr. Desmet, also fails to see that the PLANNED Covid Psyop is a TOTALLY deliberate ploy because he doesn’t think (after more than 1 year, even 2 years, into this total PLANNED scam!) it’s ALL intentionally sinister as he stated in a prior podcast (this makes him witting or unwitting controlled opposition).

      In the May of 2022 podcast with James Corbett he stated that “some people tend to overestimate the degree of planning and intentions” (behind the COUNTLESS, VERIFIABLE, FULLY INTENTIONAL, FULLY PLANNED atrocities by the ruling tribe of psychopaths over the last century alone) and see all of it as being planned which Desmet called “an extreme position” … Sound logical thinking is “extreme” and therefore false and sick in his demented delusional view!!!

      In his overpriced misleading whitewashing old material regurgitated book the psychology of totalitarianism he too states that “There are countless … examples that seem to point in the direction of a plan being implemented, such as the fact that the definition of ‘pandemic’ was adjusted shortly before the coronavirus crisis; that the definition of ‘herd immunity’ was changed during the crisis, implying that only vaccines can achieve it … [he continuous with several other obvious facts of an ENTIRELY PLANNED event, especially discerned through the totality of all these facts].” “SEEM to point in the direction of a plan”??? No! They most evidently, clearly, and irrefutably DO demonstrate and prove it IS a COMPLETELY AND FULLY DELIBERATE PlanDemic! A big scam. An Entirely Planned Holocaust against the non-ruling herd of people (see cited link above). A coherent 12-year old kid can figure that out.

      It clearly shows Desmet’s own complete lunacy. But because almost everyone in the culture is a member of mass formation (madness), including the “woke” people of the alternative media domain, hardly anyone recognizes Desmet’s lunacy. Not surprising that he has even become some type of popular “guru” among the adherents of the alternative media landscape and his whitewashed fake narrative strongly resonates with both mainstream people and alternative mainstream folks.

      With his false use of language Desmet obscures or hides the true reality instead of directly and uncompromising exposing it — aiding the obfuscation of the vital reality of what the ruling authorities really are. He does the same thing when he speaks of ‘the elite’ (as he does in a number of podcasts) when, in reality, they are THE SCUM OF HUMANS because they are REALITY-VERIFIED PSYCHOPATHS (see referenced source above). Yet in the Corbett podcast he “teaches” us that we, the masses, need to start thinking differently. Right… how about YOU start with sane instead of insane thinking/talking/”teaching”/etc, Dr. Desmet?

      How do self-styled “truth-tellers” wake up the masses to the so-called truth when they THEMSELVES use lies with their deceitful fake language???
      No one is “teaching” or “waking up” the ignorant masses to the CORE truths with lies, with the official “language of lies” (see cited source above).

      This all means Desmet is ALSO a member of the masses of lunatics, an ACTIVE CARD-CARRYING MEMBER of mass formation!!! When, if at all, will he wake up from his state of mass psychosis, his “invisible” stupidity? When, if at all, will he face the TRUE and FULL reality instead of hiding behind fantasies such as his whitewashed “reality” of human civilization?

      It shows we live in a global mental asylum with criminal and/or delusional mainstream psychologists, scientists, and docs as the guards, “teachers” and “therapists” … The blind/criminal/mad leading the blind/criminal/mad; the blind/criminal/mad adhere to the blind/criminal/mad = the human madhouse.

      Worst of all, perhaps, the mass formation/mass psychosis notion frames the problem as the public being a mere unaccountable non-culpable victim in this phenomenon (the gist of the circular argument is: the masses should change their thinking but they got brainwashed so they’re victims). Nothing could be further from the truth (see referenced source above).

      Desmet is right in that truth-activists must fight against mass formation psychosis (human madness). That also means exposing HIS deeply destructive mad part of it. This comment serves, in part, that objective.

      If you are in the United States and your employer has mandated the toxic/lethal COVID jabs, you can register to receive a “Medical Exemption Certificate” for free at https://drgastonmedicalexemption.com or https://lc.org/exempt

  2. Maximilian C. Forte

    Further to the experience of Julie Ponesse above, hundreds of suspended and fired faculty, thousands of expelled students, and hundreds of thousands of workers across Canada, and the millions who refused to be pressured:

  3. Ari

    This is a brillant and thought-provoking essay! Ethics is often conceived as a meta-discipline; so as a bioethicist-in-training, I found it very enriching to learn about the way it materializes as guidance for anthropological research.

    I’d like to comment on some of the points you raise, notably by drawing parallels with bioethics. My comment is quite long and rambly – no need to engage with it substantially.

    First, obviously, the principle of free and informed consent is also foundational to bioethics. The cornerstone of research ethics guidelines, such as the TCPS that you allude to, is to be able to participate freely and in an informed fashion to a research protocol. This should be upheld independently of the nature of the research project as you mention (e.g., from field research in the social sciences to clinical research protocols). The level of information necessary to communicate to research participants in the consent form is proportional to the level of risk that they are exposed to.

    Preoccupyingly, research participants were not informed that they were fundamentally enrolled in a clinical trial. We have a research ethics issue right here. This research ethics issue is enhanced by my (fair) presumption that the medical innovation being tested is fundamentally novel and its risks in human beings were simply unknown upon commercialization.

    Another research ethics issue you allude to relates to the information provided by research participants. Participants were provided with lies and contradictory information about the mechanism of action of the injection (e.g., it is a vaccine, the mRNA does not travel beyond the injections site), its effectiveness (i.e., from 99% effective based on Pfizer press releases – hello evidence-based medicine and peer-reviewed studies – to small and diminishing effectiveness over time), and its safety (e.g., no, women will not suffer from menstrual irregularities). As you explained, we now know from several medical studies and online discussions (which hold value in terms of evidence, in my opinion) that there are fundamental dangers and remaining unknowns regarding mechanisms, effectiveness, and safety.

    Research ethics has therefore not been respected. Similar conclusions can be made regarding principles of clinical ethics. The ability to consent freely to medical care, a neighbouring principle in clinical ethics, is jeopardized. In the last two years, bioethicists in Québec have designed discriminatory triage protocols – an example being the CHUM’s decision to deny an unvaccinated women the opportunity to receive a lung transplant needed for her cystic fibrosis.

    Bioethicists have applauded these decisions in the media and scholarly literature. Some have advocated for further infringement on clinical ethics by wanting to prevent unvaccinated family members to accompany patients during a hospital stay, which is an absolutely inhumane policy in my opinion as I discussed previously on this channel. Others advocated for behavioral nudge techniques, raising important questions for public health ethics.

    Bioethics, along all its subfields, have also been plagued by a preoccupying silence as well: a one-sided silence regarding the SYSTEMIC oppression, segregation, and exclusion endured by the unvaccinated.

    Strangely, I was reading an article this week titled “Bioethics, Ukraine, and the Peril of Silence” (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/bioethics-ukraine-and-the-peril-of-silence/FEA0F315432009F943E8B6CCC48EE143) claiming that bioethicists should speak up against the situation in Ukraine.

    This article would warrant a comprehensive critical analysis highlighting the double-standards of the author. He claims that we should speak up to defend Ukraine by tracing back to the origins of the Nuremberg Code, the idea that we live in “liberal societies” and that we need “to defend the institutions that protect our liberties and freedoms”, by highlighting that “authoritarians need obedient civil servants”. He concludes by quoting Elie Weisel saying “I am obsessed with silence because of the silence of the world. I do not understand why the world was silent when we needed its outcry… Where were the humanists, the leaders, the liberals, the spokesmen for mankind? The victims needed them. If they had spoken up, the killers would not have killed, or would have killed less. If they had spoken up, th slaughterer would not have succededed in his task”.

    The double-standard of the author is shocking when we think about the silence of bioethicists towards the mistreatment of the unvaccinated. Coming from a field that portrays itself as champions of inclusive and anti-oppressive measures, it is even more astonishing. Worse, bioethicists have not been merely silent. They have actively argued for this systemic discrimination and built rhetorical tools to serve that purpose, in contrast to the arguments of the author.

    You mention that anthropology has failed once and for all, and that it is entering an era of ZERO ANTHROPOLOGY. I’m tempted to say the same thing about bioethics – we are witnessing the end of an era dedicated to the defense of personal autonomy, and as you write elegantly, of what makes us human. There is no more corporeal sovereignity, another step after the erosion of the ideal of the soveign state through American imperialism (I believe you have written in-length about this).

    Preoccupyingly, as I was recently browing the journals in the field of bioethics, some “post-plandemic” reflections are starting to become more and more published (keeping in mind the usually long delays between article submissions and publications). I am worried that there is a growing body of literature in bioethics in favour of mandatory vaccination, nudging policies, erosion of free and informed consent, that is currently being constituted as we speak. I could actually provide a list of articles. These articles, which feature arguments anchored in faillible principle-based approaches (i.e., principles can be twisted easily to support essentially any viewpoint), will constitute rhetorical tools that will be easily mobilized by policymakers amid a new plandemic. This is what has been passed down to us through complacency with the dominant discourse.

    Hence, I am also wondering whether we are witnessing a ZERO BIOETHICS. (I am also wondering in the first place if there has ever been a bioethics. There have been endless debates about the nature of bioethics – from a metadiscipline to an interdisciplinary research and practice field). Anyhow, the current unfolding of events is confirming that bioethics is an interdisciplinary field instrumentalized as a tool to manufacture consent for technological and social “innovation” blindly framed as progress.

    Conversely, I can’t help but wonder whether critically engaging with our respective disciplines is a revolutionary way to keep them alive?

    Can we operate as actors of change? Is there still hope?

  4. Maximilian C. Forte

    ADDENDA:

    One point that I failed to make is an important one: one could be ferociously PRO-VAX…and still be disturbed at the violation of informed consent. The right to informed consent is not dependent upon one’s stance on vaxxes.

    The reason this article looks through the prism of one’s position on the non-vaccines is that it was made fundamental to the entire process of denying people their basic rights. Thus what people think about the nature and value of the non-vaccines occupies centre stage–but that need not be the case.

    The main point is that campuses, all campuses, our campuses have become the central loci for a massive and egregious violation of human rights. Yes, that just happened, we just experienced it, and in many cases it is ongoing. How do academics let that happen?

    We anthropologists, not to mention ethics review boards in our universities, will twist ourselves into tight little knots about how, why, when, and where we can ask questions. In that case, informed consent rules supreme. However, demand that people inject a foreign substance into their bodies, which in most cases they do not need, which has unknown long-term effects, and has damaged/killed some in the short-term–and informed consent was dismissed as if it were a nutty, goofball concept, like the “crazy conspiracy theory” that was alleged to be natural immunity (until your CDC confirmed on Aug. 11, 2022, that, no, natural immunity is real and one should not differentiate between the vaxxed and un-vaxxed). And supposedly serious, accomplished professionals presided over and witnessed all of this. At the very least, don’t you feel ashamed? Don’t you feel a little dirty about it all?

    We anthropologists will become rightly consumed with concern about medical testing and forced injection of Indigenous populations. Now because the majority is under direct assault, you suspend all your previous questions, concerns, and criticisms? These vaxxes have a much more powerful effect than we could have imagined, not least of which are psychological, cultural, cognitive, and ethical effects.

    Our universities, whether in the US, and certainly in Quebec, also have mandatory training concerning sexual harassment. In those modules, CONSENT figures prominently. But non-consent is permitted to be accompanied with damaging, negative repercussions when it comes to making a medical choice? Again, for the overwhelming majority on campus, the anti-Covid shots are totally unnecessary. Most do not meet the profile of the high-risk categories, i.e., age beyond average life expectancy PLUS several comorbidities.

    Indeed, in the past 2.5 years, not a single student in any of my classes was hospitalized for Covid, before the shots were rolled out. After, I had one student contact me from her hospital room to inform me that she was in ICU with serious heart inflammation, within 24 hours of her mRNA shot. Please do not talk about “risk-benefit” as if it favours the shots, and as if that is even remotely relevant to informed consent.

    Some anthropologists like to tell their prospective research hosts that the benefits of participation in the research project is that it will help advance understanding of humanity. That sounds pretty damn vital! Does it entitle the anthropologist to violate informed consent? Absolutely not.

    Please, wake up now.

  5. Jack McJack

    “Anthropology has not just failed itself, and the world, yet again. It’s not just another failure. No, not at all. This failure is the final one. This is the final, irreparable, irreversible failure. There is no coming back from this. The silence of anthropologists is a clear sign to everyone that, from this period onward, nothing produced by university-based anthropologists has even a shred of credibility, nothing, on any topic. It’s over. You’re finished. You did it to yourselves.”

    Word.

  6. Joel Gauthier

    Hi Max, question for you, have you found that anthropologists in particular have been more spineless in this regard than other academics? I would think the ethical guidelines of psychologists/sociologists and medicine (as well as presumably a wide range of other disciplines as well) would be equally complicit in their silence in this regard. Have anthropologists been more cowardly than the rest? Or is it the University itself that is finished not just anthropology?

    1. Maximilian C. Forte

      By no means is anthropology alone, nor is it especially distinctive in this regard. Since I operate in anthropology, that was my focus. One could write similar, and often much worse, if writing about fields such as medicine, bioethics, psychology, philosophy, political science, economics, and so on. They all failed. I agree that what we are witnessing is the collapse of the University, and not just anthropology.

      It’s something that causes me immense regret. I am constantly wishing I could go back to the final year of high school–an important fork in the road for anyone–and decide NOT to go to university at all. If this life is training for the next one, then Joel expect that when we meet in the next one I will be a carpenter, furniture maker, or self-sufficient farmer.

      1. Joel Gauthier

        I don’t regret my time at university, I still consider it to be a major accomplishment and changed the way I’m able to view the world (ironically) enough to be able to see many of the problems with what is happening now … I suspect my viewpoint on that might be different if I had a career in one though. That said if there is a new life after this one, i’m all for some kind of extraction out of the systems of this one! I could live in the barn on the self-sufficient farm and chase away coyotes and neoliberal fascist delusional self-righteous mobs, and gophers!

  7. voza0db

    Hello Maximilian…

    In the Plantation I slave-on they gave/give a piece of paper for each modern moron slave to sign before injecting them with the mRNA toxic spew… That’s what they declare is the “informed consent”.

    Since ~99% of the herd of modern moron slaves in this Plantation is Ignorant and Irresponsible and has absolute trust in the medical mob they don’t even read the paper, they just signed it and take the jab with a smile* on their face.

    Clearly not much change during the passing of Time!

    *Sadly we can’t see them smiling because they are wearing muzzles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.