A History of Flagrant Experimentation: The Call to Revoke Biofascism

Human Experimentation

As a society, are we willing to open our eyes to the history of experimentation on everyday people? It’s “them not us” we might think, from a stance lacking compassion. If we care about protecting our own human rights, we must value the rights of others. This begins with education…


By Janey Bibolet Ward


The Greater Good

Throughout history there are many documented examples of experiments and procedures conducted on unwilling and uniformed subjects to the extent of causing great bodily harm, permanent damage, and even death. Many of these were under the guise of offering protection from serious disease and in the name of the greater good of society.

Buck v. Bell: Eugenics/Legally Sanctioned Sterilization of Institutionalized Persons, 1927–Present

The Eugenics movement in the United States in the early 1900s was supported as a progressive cause by many prominent leaders to protect society from those deemed imbeciles, criminals, or deviants with the sole aim of preventing reproduction by such individuals.


In the Buck case, the guardians of Carrie Buck that filed were appointed by the same physicians that sought to forcibly sterilize her. She was used to bring the case to the supreme court in order to legitimize and legalize forced sterilization, as it would apply to others deemed unfit to reproduce.


This practice continued well into the 1970s, and included Black, Native American, and Latina women. It is well-noted that Adolf Hitler was inspired by the eugenics movement and ethnic cleansing that led to the Holocaust.


The legacy of this barbaric practice continues to this day in the U.S. Criminal Justice system where defendants have been granted more lenient sentences if they undergo forced sterilization. Presently, there are accusations that women in ICE detention centers have also been forcibly sterilized; what can be seen as legal genocide.

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment: Intentionally Infecting and Withholding Approved Treatment, 1932–’72

Following the 1920s Eugenics Movement in the United States, the Public Health Services was established under the US Surgeon General’s office as a military organization to protect the purity of the “American Race.”


The observational study was designed to follow 300 subjects infected with syphilis who were not notified of their condition nor treated with readily available penicillin. Many were allowed to infect others and succumb to the disease in order to be studied in autopsies.

Japanese Engagement in Germ Warfare, 1940s

During World War II, the Japanese inflicted horrific experiments on the Chinese and tested subjects using germ warfare, surgical experiments, bomb exercises, and other extremes that resulted in atrocities that are in comparison to the Nazi Holocaust.


In 1945, before they surrendered to allied forces, kamikaze pilots, under the code name “Cherry Blossoms at Night,” were instructed to drop plague-infested flies on San Francisco, as was done in China, in response to the U.S. bombing of Japanese cities.

Nazi Atrocities: The Nuremberg Code, 1947

November 2020 marked the 75th Anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials. The International Law Commission of the United Nations codified the 10 principles required for medical experimentation in response to the atrocities committed by Nazi war criminals during the Holocaust.


It is documented history that they forcibly subjected prisoners to inhumane and unethical procedures, experimented on people without consent, proper clinical methods, or observers.


The physicians and scientists that participated mostly went unpunished. The international tribunal captured only a few. The resulting guiding framework is built upon the right to informed consent by the subject, and clearly states the responsibility of the physician or institution to explicitly state the purpose of the experiment and risks associated.


Most importantly, if evidence of harm exists, the experiment is to be discontinued. This code of ethics established the foundation of modern bioethics and the protection of the basic human right to bodily integrity.

Henrietta Lacks and Johns Hopkins University, 1951–Present

In the 1950s it was legal to obtain cell samples and use them for experimentation without the patient's consent. One of the most famous cases involved a young mother with cervical cancer who was treated at Johns Hopkins by Dr. George Gey. The ”HeLa” cell lines were used to create the polio and COVID-19 vaccines, and were used in multiple experiments testing radiation, exploring the human genome, and other studies without compensation to the family or descendants.

The Cutter Incident, 1955

The first mass vaccination campaign to combat polio was procedurally flawed and led to the infection of 40,000 children, paralysis in hundreds, and 10 deaths. The failure to inactivate the live virus was blamed on the federal regulators and inspectors rather than Cutter Industries manufacturing and inspection processes.


This case is heralded for creating more stringent guidelines for vaccine safety regulations and efficacy studies, yet paradoxically led to the creation of the United States vaccine injury court.


In 1986, The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created to shield vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits and strictly regulate compensation for patients if evidence of harm or death resulted from vaccination.

The Willowbrook School: Hepatitis Infection of Orphans to Test a Vaccine, 1955–'70

Troops during World War II suffered from hepatitis, and the race to develop a vaccine was led by the Surgeon General’s office which established the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board to encourage research. Dr. Krugman proposed an experiment on developmentally disabled children institutionalized in the Willowbrook School.


Desperate parents were forced to consent to this in order to find a place for children they could not adequately care for. These “vaccine challenge” experiments deliberately exposed children to a disease to test possible treatments.

The Rise of Bioethics, 1960s

The rise of bioethics is attributed to Dr. Henry Beecher of Harvard Medical School. In his 1966 paper, he addressed the need for regulating clinical practice with emphasis on informing patients of any potential risks associated with an experiment or procedure.


In 1968, he published another paper that focused on the ethical considerations for discontinuing medical treatment, and how to establish the role of an independent investigator to oversee treatment beyond that of the physicians' team.


As a result of his work, two major institutions were formed in the 1970s to develop standards for bioethics: Hastings Center/Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences and The Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University. In 1995, Johns Hopkins formed the Berman Institute. These are the leading institutes directing policy and guidance today.


In response to innovation and developments in allopathic medicine, vaccinology, and surgery, the ethical questions continue to evolve with greater complexity. Scientists and physicians are now faced with new and difficult questions. The increasing pharmaceutical funding in universities and research labs further complicates clinical ethics and patient practice as well as public trust.

Military Experiments on Vietnam Soldiers, 1955–’75

During the United States invasion of Vietnam, soldiers were given combat kits that contained painkillers, amphetamines, opioids, and steroids to keep them awake and aware during extended combat. Military manipulation of soldiers with drugs was an experiment that used psychotropic agents as a tactic of warfare.


The British philosopher, Nick Land, aptly described the Vietnam War as “a decisive point of intersection between pharmacology and the technology of violence.”

Anthrax/Gulf War Syndrome: Project Daylily, 1990

Soldiers in the Gulf War were required to be subjected to the anthrax vaccine. Despite evidence of harm to reproductive and immune health, the vaccines were given to all active duty persons. Standard safety and efficacy trials and procedures were sidelined to advance the experiment for military readiness to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States Army advanced its Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program to test biowarfare agents on military test subjects as part of Project Daylily.

The Right To Refuse: A Closer Reading of The Legal Precedent for Forced Vaccination: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905

The U.S. Supreme Court continues to cite Jacobson v. Massachusetts as the precedent to allow the state to enact involuntary mass vaccination programs to protect public health. The smallpox vaccine was the first of its kind to be mandated by the government. A closer reading indicates that under this law, a citizen may still refuse and accept a monetary fine as punishment for refusal, thereby not explicitly legally allowing vaccination by force.

The Precautionary Principle: The COVID-19 Vaccine Experiment, 2020

Based on the history of government experimentation on the population, it is not inconceivable that we are witnessing yet another experiment on the populace with the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent vaccine series.


Johns Hopkins COVID-19 report from 06/28/22 notes that the lab leak theory of a gain-of-function (GoF) research (bioweapon) cannot be discounted as the cause of the global COVID-19 pandemic, citing a preliminary report by the World Health Organization.


The precautionary principle states that experiments on a populace should not occur if medical intervention is risky or causes potential harm. COVID-19 vaccine mandates effectively remove unwilling subjects from participating in community and the economy if they refuse.

The Time Is Now to End BioWeapon Research

With the rise of new discoveries in the human genome, genetic modification and sequencing (CRISPR), modern medicine has become a futuristic science. Many new discoveries may save lives, yet the threat of biofascism looms. The Organic Consumers Association explains the term, biofascism, coined by political scientist Naomi Wolf:


“Total control and domination by Big Government and Big Business, institutionalized suppression of dissent and civil liberties, media censorship, constant government and media panic-mongering, and 24/7 surveillance.”


Wolf asserts that the COVID-19 pandemic was used to swiftly erode personal liberties and constitutional rights with lockdowns and mandates without public or legislative debate.


Biofascism is an affront to fundamental human rights and bodily sovereignty. Humanity should no longer surrender to the faustian bargain with the chemical/medical cartel and government agencies to dictate medical treatment and erode personal rights.


The experimental manipulation of basic life forces/DNA/RNA and the unknown consequences to evolutionary biology are crimes against humanity. Genetic manipulation through COVID-19 RNA vaccines has been posited with potential evidence showing insertion in furin cleavage sites that would not occur in natural evolution; this is a violation of bioethics.


The unknown effects on our children and future generations will not be fully understood for many years.

What Does This Mean for Us Now?

When you look at the history of experimentation by the government on unwilling subjects, it begs the questions—how to decide what to do, how to legally resist if we refuse, and what can we do to prevent future experimentation without consent?


If we subject ourselves to mandatory Emergency Use Authorization `(EUA) vaccinations in order to participate in society, we willfully give in to tyranny, and give up our rights to control our future. These are complex ideas to consider.

Take Action to Stand Up For Your Biological Sovereignty

Advocate and educate your community. Speak out on community forums and social media platforms and share this article. Our collective power is essential to advocate for our rights, our children, and future generations. Watch Public Health: Historical Underpinnings and Potentially Repressive Policies by Edwin Black.


Published on August 25, 2022


To contact A Voice For Choice Advocacy, please email media@avoiceforchoice.org.


If you would like to support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, consider making a donation today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.