Though not directly related to your original post, this story somehow fits here:

The FDA Just Quietly Gutted Protections for Human Subjects in Research | Opinion

In a nutshell, it appears the FDA has passed a regulation that will make it easier, apparently much easier, for corporations to perform experiments on individuals without their consent.

This may not come as a surprise to those of us who view the past few years as one very big vaccine experiment without anybody's consent, but now it looks like it will be easier for the experts to conduct such experimentation in the best of times without the cover of a (clears throat) international catastrophe.

Some snippets from the editorial:

These measures have generally been strengthened since the Nuremberg Trials, formally adopted across the U.S. government through the institutional review board (IRB) system. An IRB is a committee of specialists and administrators at each institution that oversees research design and assures the protection of research subjects.

At its core, the new FDA rule change allows any IRB to broadly assume the FDA's own exemption power, dubiously granted under the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016, to grant exemptions to informed consent requirements based on "minimal risk." Based on vague guidelines, it effectively gives thousands of IRB committees the unilateral ability to determine that researchers need not obtain true informed consent from research participants.

This new power applies to the IRBs housed at clinical research organizations, universities large and small, pharma companies, and multi-billion dollar corporations that provide IRB services to research groups.

...

Logically, it applies either to studies where the number of patients is so large that researchers cannot practically survey them all for permission or studies where all the participants are not even necessarily known to the researchers.

Consider that prominent physicians have recommended greatly expanding the set of patients who receive statins, a cholesterol medication, to prevent heart disease. Some have even suggested adding statins to the water supply, though no clinical trial has studied the tactic. The new rule makes it more likely that a local university IRB, which considers statins "minimal risk"—which is the prevailing notion about them, might approve a study in which it would be impossible to gain the informed consent of water drinkers in the area.

...

Another obvious application of the relaxed standards is to government-funded studies of online posts designed to identify "misinformation." Under the guise of conducting misinformation research projects, entities like the Stanford Internet Observatory have laundered government demands for censorship of speech—even true speech—in online settings like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). The literal purpose of this research is to harm its research subjects by censoring their speech and labeling them as purveyors of misinformation.