You know I had really hoped that wasn't a true story
Direct Headline: Is it right to use Nazi research if it can save lives?
By Frank Swain 23rd July 2019
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190723-the-ethics-of-using-nazi-science
*****
This one is a bit complicated. I see Fauci in two lights. The first is as a storied medical and health care professional with lots of career success and has probably helped lots of people directly or indirectly. The second is the camera hog celebrity wannabe career bureaucrat who surrendered the clear simple messaging that the American public needed and did so probably at the cost of many lives.
If, running a hypothetical, my godson had Parkinsons or one of your children had Parkinsons, and unethical research in the past has done some progress to help those with Parkinsons, how angry would we be about it?
I'll be completely honest. If someone came to me and said they wanted to propose a Constitutional amendment where all convicted rapists, child molesters, murderers, wife beaters, car jackers, drug dealers and the like were sent off to be subjected to medical experimentation, designed to further research into saving other lives, in place of innocent dogs and animals, I'd vote for it. I like dogs. People in general? Yeah, not so much. If I pass 100 dogs on the street. I'll smile a hundred times. If I pass 100 random people on the street? Yeah, not so much. Even if it was a woman as beautiful as Gal Gadot? Yeah, still not so much. As you turn full geriatric, that mythical inch and half of standard issue roast beef doesn't suddenly make you believe you are watching Frank Sinatra live in concert anymore. Most of the time, at this point, I'm just happy when I don't need to wake up 4 times in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom.
I find most people's view of burning books changes over time. If you want to burn To Kill A Mockingbird in political effigy, I'll probably punch you in the face. But if there was a landfill full of dogearred copies of Dean Koontz's Phantoms, I probably wouldn't stop Ben Affleck from using a flamethrower.
I'm positive Ben Affleck is a mediocre actor. However I'm not so positive that I can hang modern science when I'm very likely complicit in some way in benefiting from that carnage.
If a dog was laced with flesh eating bacteria and then left to be eaten alive by ticks, I'd be unhappy with it. But could I say the same if it was a convicted child molester?