The Nuremberg Code and Covid-19 Vaccinations

Examining the case

In my post last week, I ruminated on the importance of the Nuremberg Code and how it was being discarded to force vaccinations on the population. I’d like to take a closer look at what the code says and whether or not it can be applied to the Covid-19 vaccination campaign, particularly in light of the growing movement of vaccine passports in Democrat controlled areas and the OSHA mandate that may still win in the Supreme Court.

There’s more to the Nuremberg Code than a question of legality

Before we even dig into the code, the first objection from the pro-mandate point of view is that the vaccines are not experimental because they have received FDA approval. This is hogwash on a couple of levels. For starters, the vaccines are not approved for all age groups in the United States, but the vaccine passport systems being put in place do cover those unapproved age groups. That clearly falls into the realm of experimentation. One may still argue that as there are testing and masking options (masks are another experimental medical intervention), it’s not a true force for vaccination. But the Nuremberg Code addresses this too, citing any constraint or coercion in order to force participation as a violation.

However, the FDA’s approval of the vaccines is irrelevant. The truth about whether or not this is experimentation cannot be rubber stamped away. That would be equivalent to saying Rosa Parks was not discriminated against because sitting at the back of the bus was a law. The FDA does not have sole moral or ethical authority to declare a medical procedure experimental. This could be exactly the reason the Nuremberg Code uses those words, in addition to the word legal. The drafters likely understood that by simply making experimentation a legal definition, it would mean any government could still experiment and get off scot-free just by passing a law saying it’s not doing that.

As you are about to see, the case for Nuremberg Code violation is very strong. Many politicians, bureaucrats, and health officials have clearly violated the Code and should be held accountable.

The Ten Commandments

Nuremberg Code Permissible Medical Experiments source

There are 10 concepts that are integral to the idea of a moral, ethical and legal medical experiment:

1. The human subject MUST consent

2. The results must be fruitful for society and achievable by no other means

3. The experiment should be designed with a knowledge of the history of the disease

4. All unnecessary suffering and injury should be avoided

5. All unnecessary death and disabling injury should be avoided

6. The degree of risk should be considered relative the risk being avoided

7. Full care of the subject including preparation and facilities

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons

9. The subject should always have the capacity to abort the experiment at any time

10. The scientist must be capable of ending the experiment at any time

Let’s examine these one by one.

The human subject MUST consent

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

In addition to what I already highlighted in my opening commentary about this not being just a legal standard, note that even the duration of this vaccine experiment is in violation. No one has been made known the duration of the vaccination program. Will it need to stay in place for 1 year, 5 years, forever? How many shots will it require?

What about the long term effects upon the health of the person? How can this be known when the duration of the experiment is not even known?

That last line about the inability to delegate responsibility is interesting. We know how much pols and bureaucrats love to pass the buck. They are all liable for their violation no matter who ultimately signed off on the vaccination program. Pinning future blame solely on the FDA, for example, will not fly in a Nuremberg trial.

The results must be fruitful for society and achievable by no other means

The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

Vitamin D, exercise, and early treatment. These ideas could have saved countless lives and achieved more than the vaccines have.

But even more importantly, if the experiment reduces Covid related deaths but increases other deaths, then it clearly violated the principle. Time will tell, but the long term damage to society from the vaccination program could indeed outweigh the lives saved via vaccination. Please keep in mind that the absolute risk reduction for deaths via vaccination was a mere 1-2%. The impact on all cause mortality from vaccination has thus far been negligible. But the harm being done to society is growing, through the continued discovery of vast harm to the cardio vascular systems of healthy humans (myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clotting, and heart attacks).

This principle is especially savage for the lockdowners. We’re talking only about vaccination in this post, but it’s easy to see how lockdowners can be brought to trial on this point alone.

The experiment should be designed with a knowledge of the history of the disease

The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.

To the contrary, this experiment was conducted in coordination with an effort to suppress the possibly unnatural history of the disease. At this point there is no doubt that the lab leak theory was purposefully suppressed.

But even more damaging, as the lab leak theory may end up being incorrect, is the suppression / denial of early treatment options or any other methods of lessening the severity of the disease. Study of the Covid-19 disease was limited to documenting the many symptoms and attempting to limit the spread. But no effort was undertaken to actually understand and gain knowledge of the disease itself.

All unnecessary suffering and injury should be avoided

The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

I’m going to address the physical injuries in a moment, so let’s focus on the mental suffering. Again, lockdowners will have this reckoning as well, but what are the mental costs of telling an entire workforce to take the Covid-19 vaccination or lose their job? That’s part of the experiment. What about the mental suffering caused by the vaccine injuries? For those who have tried to comply with every shifting goalpost, only to suffer injury from the vaccination, what kind of mental suffering did that also trigger?

And don’t forget that at least the UK’s scientific community has already admitted to purposefully inflicting psychological trauma on the populace in order to facilitate compliance. LINK

All unnecessary death and disabling injury should be avoided

No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

A friend of mine sent over this LINK, which has at the time of writing 291 cited injuries and deaths among athletes. Should this be the case, what about the general population? We can get an idea from VAERS, although the CDC and FDA have no interest in validating adverse events. The data on death and injury is, likely intentionally, horrible. But the one smoking gun so far has been the rates of myocarditis among young men and boys. If the rate of myocarditis is as high as it appears, then there is no doubt that the rate of disabling injury is also higher than any vaccination program we have seen before. Since many of these injuries are occurring in subjects that were otherwise healthy, it seems rather obvious these are unnecessary injuries.

And it should go without saying that any healthy minor that dies from the vaccine was an unnecessary death.

The degree of risk should be considered relative the risk being avoided

The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

In the aggregate, the risk that was presented by Covid is roughly equal to that of a severe flu season. In spite of the inflated death totals, caused by incidental diagnoses and confounding comorbidities, the Covid death toll is still roughly the same level, when adjusted for population and pop. age, as the Hong Kong flu of 1968-69.

The perceived degree of risk was clouded from the start by sensational news stories and awful takes on the CFR (case fatality rate) in Italy, which was the first country to really panic over the virus. Many people are still addressing the crisis based on the WHO’s flawed initial estimate of a 3-4% CFR, with little understanding of the extent of age stratified risk and asymptomatic prevalence, which resulted in an IFR (infection fatality risk) that was orders of magnitude lower.

The mass vaccination program is an effort to avoid a perceived risk that does not match reality. For nearly all healthy people under 50, the risk from Covid is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

From a community risk, the degree of risk from healthy people spreading Covid was also always overblown. Asymptomatic people are not the drivers of pandemics, and that’s the case with Covid as well. The National Football League just openly stated that they have not a single case of asymptomatic transmission leading to a symptomatic case, LINK. This agrees with the established science as well. LINK

Full care of the subject including preparation and facilities

Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.

They had nearly two years to expand hospital capacity, and instead of doing that, they terminated hospital employees for not taking the vaccination under question. Further damning themselves, hospitals have been denying care to those without vaccination, even for serious conditions that are unrelated to Covid.

I would say that little effort has been made to provide adequate facilities to care for the experimental subjects.

The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons

The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

By enrolling the entire nation in a mass vaccination program, this experiment is now being conducted by thousands upon thousands of doctors, nurses, and Rite Aid pharmacists that have no scientific qualifications to conduct a vaccine experiment. They have been given talking points pamphlets and enlisted to support the program. And many have done so willingly and forcefully.

But simply because you have medical degree does not make you scientifically qualified to conduct a mass vaccination program.

From the standpoint of the FDA, CDC, and NIH, while these organizations are believed to be stacked with scientists, very few public health officials are actually scientists. For example, if you examine the scientific papers authored by Rochelle Walensky, you won’t find anything that resembles the scientific complexity of a mass vaccination program, LINK. These people aren’t scientists. They are administrators of science. They push funding around, which makes them very powerful. But none of them appear to be scientifically qualified to conduct this experiment.

The subject should always have the capacity to abort the experiment at any time

During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

If you received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine and you wished to stop there, can you? Will you still be able to keep your job when the FDA decides that a booster is necessary to be considered fully vaccinated?

If the vaccination series cannot be stopped without the force / coercion returning, then the subject does not have the capacity to abort the experiment.

The scientist must capable of ending the experiment at any time

During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Once the government directs the experiment, the scientist loses the capacity to end the experiment. They must appeal to the government. Generally speaking, governments are not eager to admit they authorized a failing medical experiment.

This last principle will probably play out with the most drama. As it becomes more and more apparent that something isn’t right, something isn’t ethical, the benefit isn’t what was promised, the harm is greater than expected… watching the governments around the world try to end this experiment will be fascinating. In politics, any mistake is an opportunity for rivals to pounce. In America, there is a scenario in which the Democratic Party ceases to exist, following their commitment to enrolling us in a failed mass medical experiment against our will. How they navigate the fallout as the edifice crumbles will be fascinating to watch.

Let’s hope that all who participated in this awful human experiment are brought to justice. Clearly, the Nuremberg Trial and the Code that came out of it was not enough of a deterrent for evil people to do it all over again.