"Woke" Bioethics Tyranny

An extreme absurd example illustrates an underlying moral and ethical failure

Sometimes it is necessary to push a moral philosophy to the extreme before its flaws become clear to all. And then once that happens, it gets much easier to recognize and reject less extreme examples that grow from the same root. At other times, true believers in a flawed moral philosophy will voluntarily advocate for an extreme example without being pushed, and in doing so, inadvertently reveal the absurdity of their proposition.

Plato wrote of Socrates’ use of the logical reasoning method of reducing a philosophical assertion he opposed to the point of absurdity, giving rise to the debating method known as an apagogical argument. This involves attempting to establish a claim by showing that following the logic of a proposition or argument would lead to absurdity or contradiction.

---

The focus of this essay is the philosophical position that, in the case of public health, it is acceptable to mandate that members of society accept a medical treatment without granting personal informed consent, justified as necessary to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. I argue that the proposition that the majority or the State has the right to impose a medical procedure on the minority is both flawed and repugnant to an ethical society. The self-evident recent embodiment of this flawed and repugnant logic is the mandated “emergency use authorized” experimental gene therapy products marketed as COVID vaccines. But, as any parent of a school-aged child or hospital-based health care worker can attest, mandates to accept medical procedures (ergo, “vaccination”) without full informed consent are ubiquitous.

These mandates were and are a form of coercion and compulsion. Moreover, the use of government-sponsored propaganda to cause people to accept a medical procedure typically involves coercion, compulsion, and enticement, and governments used all of these during the COVID-19 crisis to “overcome vaccine hesitancy”- defined as unwillingness to accept injection with an emergency use authorized experimental medical product whose side effects include cardiac damage and death.

The next step in the logical progression with this thinking involves the development and deployment of medical “vaccine” products that surreptitiously spread within the general population by infecting or otherwise immunizing non-consenting individuals once the product is introduced into the population. In the historical case of live attenuated polio vaccine, this was accomplished with knowledge and quiet endorsement by public health officials without informed consent by most others, as the “live” vaccine strain is shed in the feces of the vaccinated and typically infects family members and other close associates.

In the current case, the intentional failure of the FDA and other regulatory bodies to require “shedding” studies for either the COVID mRNA or self-replicating RNA vaccines suggests that a willful neglect to provide even the most superficial informed consent continues to be a feature of Western nation “public health” leadership.

Bioethics, Medical Mandates and Nazi Physicians

The use or imposition of coercion, enticement, and compulsion by an individual, group, or government to cause a person to accept a medical procedure has long been considered fundamentally unethical. This philosophical position was reinforced as a core principle of civilized society during the Nuremberg trials of Nazi physicians. Historically, the core of modern medical ethics has been that individuals have personal autonomy and sovereignty over their own bodies, must freely consent to accept a medical procedure, and must receive a complete disclosure of potential risks and benefits, before granting personal consent. This fundamental ethical truth is not negotiable, nor is it context-dependent.

There is no ethical codicil that this logic no longer applies if and when a medical emergency has been declared, or else individuals, groups, or governments would be at liberty to bypass this whenever they “felt” or “believed” that a goal or objective warranted imposing a medical procedure on others.

Time and again the world has experienced some authority or authoritarian organization declaring a medical emergency that turned out to be anything but. To illustrate this point, the German National Socialist Government (Nazi’s) thought that the deleterious effects of cold weather in Northern climes on their troops constituted a medical emergency that warranted forced experimentation on prisoners. They conducted horrific medical experiments on prisoners to study hypothermia and develop treatments for cold exposure, primarily to aid their military in harsh climates like the Eastern Front.

The most notorious experiments were carried out at the Dachau concentration camp under Dr. Sigmund Rascher. Prisoners were subjected to extreme cold, often submerged in freezing water or left exposed in subzero temperatures, to simulate conditions faced by German soldiers or pilots. Data was collected on how long it took for victims to lose consciousness or die, and various rewarming techniques were tested on those who survived initial exposure. These experiments, part of a broader program of pseudoscientific and inhumane medical research, were conducted without consent and caused immense suffering and death. The results were later documented in reports like the "Dachau hypothermia studies," which were presented at the Nuremberg Trials as evidence of war crimes. While some data was later referenced in medical literature, its use remains ethically controversial due to the atrocities involved.

---

Beneficial Bloodsucking and Mandates

With this in mind, I recommend to you the curious case of the 22 July 2025 article in the peer-reviewed journal “Bioethics” titled “Beneficial Bloodsucking”, written by the academic bioethicists Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth. Both authors are affiliated with the Department of Medical Ethics, Humanities, and Law, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA.

In a logical argument that (on first read) I assumed must be intentionally absurd (akin to Dr. James Lindsay’s infamous peer-reviewed “grievance studies affair” exposing woke absurdities), Crutchfield and Hareth make the argument that promoting the development and proliferation of post-tick bite alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) is morally obligatory, and that ticks should be genetically engineered and released to promote this objective. Their peer-reviewed abstract succinctly details their logic:

The bite of the lone star tick spreads alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a condition whose only effect is the creation of a severe but nonfatal red meat allergy. Public health departments warn against lone star ticks and AGS, and scientists are working to develop an inoculation to AGS. Herein, we argue that if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tickborne AGS are also morally impermissible. After explaining the symptoms of AGS and how they are transmitted via ticks, we argue that tickborne AGS is a moral bioenhancer if and when it motivates people to stop eating meat. We then defend what we call the Convergence Argument: If x-ing prevents the world from becoming a significantly worse place, doesn't violate anyone's rights, and promotes virtuous action or character, then x-ing is strongly pro tanto obligatory; promoting tickborne AGS satisfies each of these conditions. Therefore, promoting tickborne AGS is strongly pro tanto obligatory. It is presently feasible to genetically edit the disease-carrying capacity of ticks. If this practice can be applied to ticks carrying AGS, then promoting the proliferation of tickborne AGS is morally obligatory.

In short, the argument goes as follows: eating meat is ethically bad. AGS disease of humans acquired from tickbite causes people to stop eating meat. Therefore, it is ethically obligatory to promote tick-borne AGS. They even argue that it may be possible to genetically modify ticks to increase their ability to promote AGS disease in humans. Therefore, doing so to encourage the proliferation of tick-borne AGS is a moral obligation.

If the past predicts the future, I expect an announcement of funding to engineer ticks to promote AGS to be forthcoming from the Gates Foundation any day now. Because this would perfectly complement Mr. Gates’ commitment to developing synthetic or plant-based “meat” substitutes.

Here is another gem from Crutchfield, published in “Bioethics”, illustrating where “Woke” logic has taken the field of bioethics.

Bioethics, 2019 Jan;33(1):112-121.

Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert

Parker Crutchfield

Abstract

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.

And so with this, these two woke academic bioethicists have provided us with a great spontaneous example of reductio ad absurdum ("reduction to absurdity"). The most extreme example of failure to honor the fundamental principle of informed consent is to release an infectious agent or vector (the tick) into a population of individuals who are not complying with what a subgroup defines as a moral imperative (not eating meat).

Just a tiny step back from that is the introduction of another insect vector (mosquitos) capable of transmitting a vaccine. And one step back from that is forcing a population to accept a “vaccine” product that introduces synthetic genetic material in the form of modified mRNA (and DNA fragments) into the cells of their body without obtaining freely given fully informed consent. And then to introduce a synthetic self-replicating RNA based on a virus that causes encephalitis into their cells, without demonstrating that this product cannot be shed and infect others.

This has now been normalized by “public health officials”. But it is morally wrong, and fundamentally repugnant. The ends do not justify the means. Mandating that members of society accept a medical treatment without granting personal informed consent, to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, is wrong. And even more ethically repugnant is to administer or release a product that will surreptitiously modify human behavior by inflicting an acquired medical condition such as AGS. And if you agree to this, then you can see that administering or releasing a product that will surreptitiously modify the genetics and immune function of non-consenting humans is a crime against humanity.

All of the above are morally wrong. They are uncivilized. They are examples of crimes against humanity.

---

The American Academy of Pediatrics and Mandates

Now, with that in mind, let’s turn to considering the positions taken by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) regarding vaccine mandates. The following bullet points are from the AAP website:

• “American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): The AAP has updated its policy to advocate for the elimination of all nonmedical exemptions—religious, philosophical, conscientious, or personal belief—from childhood vaccine mandates required for school and childcare attendance, stating such exemptions undermine public health and create disparities in immunization coverage. The organization emphasizes that only medical exemptions, based on recognized contraindications, should be permitted. This position, reaffirmed in July 2025, aligns with concerns over rising vaccine exemption rates and a significant measles outbreak in the U.S. during 2025.

• AAP Lawsuit Against HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: In July 2025, the AAP joined other medical organizations in filing a lawsuit challenging a directive by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that removed COVID-19 vaccines from the recommended immunization schedules for children and pregnant people. The AAP argues this action contradicts scientific evidence on vaccine safety and efficacy, undermines physician-patient trust, and disrupts legal frameworks tied to federal vaccine recommendations.

• AAP's Position on Religious Exemptions: The AAP asserts that major world religions do not prohibit vaccination and that religious objections often conflict with official religious teachings, suggesting vaccination can be a moral or religious duty to protect others. The group contends that allowing religious exemptions leads to inconsistent enforcement and reduced community immunity.

• AAP's Historical Advocacy on Vaccine and Mask Mandates: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the AAP consistently supported mask mandates for children and promoted pediatric vaccination, even as risks to children were comparatively low. State chapters advocated for continued public health restrictions into 2021 despite declining case numbers.

• AAP’s position on “Gender Affirming Care: The AAP Board of Directors voted to reaffirm the 2018 AAP policy statement on gender-affirming care and authorized development of an expanded set of guidance for pediatricians based on a systematic review of the evidence.

  An updated policy statement from 2023, plus companion clinical and technical reports, will reflect data and research on gender-affirming care since the original policy was released and offer updated guidance. The board recognized the value of additional detail with five more years of experience since the 2018 policy statement was issued.

  The decision to authorize a systematic review reflects the board’s concerns about restrictions to access to health care with bans on gender-affirming care in more than 20 states. AAP CEO/Executive Vice President Mark Del Monte, J.D., spoke at the AAP Leadership Conference in Itasca, Ill. He emphasized that policy authors and AAP leadership are confident the principles presented in the original policy, Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents, remain in the best interest of children.

  As part of its mission, the AAP will continue to “ensure young people get the reproductive and gender-affirming care they need and are seen, heard and valued as they are,” Del Monte said."

The AAP fully endorses the argument that, in the interests of “public health”, members of society (and specifically children) should be mandated to accept a medical treatment with or without personal informed consent, to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

This logic is flawed; this and other AAP positions are morally wrong, must be rejected, and organizations promoting this logic should be shamed and shunned.

---