May 18, 2021May 22, 2022 Evolve to Ecology

Beyond Nazi War Crimes Experiments: The Voluntary Consent Requirement of the Nuremberg Code- 75 year review

” Nuremberg Code “ – A code of medical ethics issued based on the laws under which Nazi criminals were tried for carrying out horrific medical experiments during WWII, in the doctors’ trial known as of the Nuremberg trials. The Nuremberg Code then formed the basis for the legislation of the Declaration of Helsinki as well as the basis of the law on a patients rights, health freedom and medical privacy. The Nuremberg Code is relevant in all countries of the ”free world”. Finally, it is specified that it was only recently that a decision was taken in the European Parliament on “ 27/1/21 ”, enjoining all the authorities not to exert pressure or solicitation on people so that they are taking the Corona vaccine in any way including vaccine certification or vaccine passports, however, we’ve seen a continual roll out and implementation of vaccine passports being put into regulation across Europe in the summer of 2021.

George J. Annas, JD, MPH, Distinguished Professor of Health Law, Ethics & Human Rights and medical ethics wrote ”The Nuremberg Code was the touchstone for defining ethical norms; nonetheless, regulation ultimately relied heavily on 2 procedural mechanisms not even mentioned in the Doctors’ Trial or the Nuremberg Code: review boards and a written consent form”. He goes on to say his colleague Leonard Glantz had stressed, when the original federal regulations were adopted in 1974 and revised in 1991 (the last time before the 2017 revisions), they reflected 2 major departures from Nuremberg: (1) they addressed medical institutions that sponsored research, rather than physicians and scientists who actually conducted research; and (2) their protections were primarily procedural (including the review board and forms). rather than substantive .

The first principle of the Nuremberg Code is the person’s willingness and informed consent to be part of an on going research, experimental trial, study, while receiving an experimental medical treatment and to be aware that they are a participant in an experiment. The individual is supposed to have active freedom of choice with informed knowledge of the risks involved without the intervention of an authority or person employing force, deception, fraud, threat, solicitation or any other type of binding or coercion.

”The prosecutors at Nuremberg spent much of their post Nuremberg lives trying to establish “a permanent Nuremberg” court to try war crimes and crimes against humanity. This effort ultimately became the International Criminal Court, which opened in 2002. Among the crimes over which the court has jurisdiction
are “grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions” (including biological experiments) and “torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments.” That the United States has yet to formally join the International Criminal Court remains a human rights scandal. Oversight of human experimentation has primarily been predicated not on international criminal law but on local peer review in an ethics and domestic civil law context. With the publication of Henry Beecher’s 1966 article on abusive post Nuremberg experiments in the United States, the movement toward federal regulation of human experimentation began.’‘-George J. Annas, JD, MPH

When was the last time in history where human populations were assumed infected and as sick until forcefully tested and proven healthy as we are being subjected to today? We’ve had lots of pandemics before SARS-CoV-2, throughout history and have never been treated this way by governments with the exception of 1976 according to the CDC when the US government attempted to vaccinate 55 million Americans with the experimental Swine Flue shot, and it had a recorded 500 cases of paralysis and 25 deaths, and so it was pulled from the market. There are either healthy people, or there are people who are according to the government infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Meanwhile normal flu disappeared? We cannot assume that the entire human population is infected with this virus and enforce mask wearing, this is fascist scientism, with no scientific basis, its no less tyrannical than assuming we are all criminals unless proven innocent.

Anyone that treats healthy people as if they are walking around already assumed infected with a virus, lacks real medical understanding, it is based on political scientism that are driven by financial agendas and plutocratic stakeholders invested in pharmaceutical experimental vaccines as the only answer to this problem, this is another violation of the Nuremberg code.

”Unfortunately, in retrospect, COVID-19 anxiety can turn to COVID-19 disillusionment when the decisions made by policy makers are dictated by suspect low quality data and consequently by poorly performing models. One solution would be to compare predictions of models against emerging reality on a daily basis using prespecified metrics such as those analysed here. Models that are consistently poorly performing should carry less weight in shaping policy considerations.”– Vincent Chin et al. August 2020.

The same methods are being used with politicians, public health advisors and the global media spinning scientism on which to base tyrannical lockdown regulations and economic restrictions in the guise of protecting public health. Meanwhile, the real doctors, scientists, immunologists, lawyers, nurses, and health workers who dare to speak out are ignored or slandered by mainstream media, called conspiracy theorists, and risk losing their jobs, reputations or practitioner licenses, being marginalised and slandered. The need for financial transparency to ensure trust in science and medicine has long been recognised, but this all ended in 2020. This is very dangerous territory, for when medicine and political governing are combined the consequences can be genocidal as we have seen with Dr Fuellmich’s ongoing work towards defending people’s medical freedoms with numerous Class Action lawsuits against global governments basing false scientism on PCR test fraud, Fact Checker Fraud, Nuremberg code violations and more. Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of BMJ, published a brilliant article on Scientism in Politics and Society titled- ”Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science” Abbasi said ”When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die”.

Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.-Kamran Abbasi, BJM

Another Scientism being used by Boris Johnson among many other politicians using scientism rather than real science to racism are these variants being dubbed after nations, like the Indian variant, the Peruvian variant, the Brazilian variant. The fact is, there are thousands of variants that a virus can mutate into within months, no ”vaccine” can prepare us for, but natural immunity is very accustomed to, see the example below illustrates-

**Diagram shows CV mutations- Source DR Eli David,** twitter

Generally, people have such blind faith in the governments and the plutocratic controlled media agencies, they believe in what is being peddled as the COVID-19 ”Vaccine”, without being presented with well-informed non- biased facts or that it is a biologically experimental mRNA based gene therapy that has not undergone any of the normal usual safety measures which a normal vaccine is usually subject to, including, 7 to 10 years of animal experiments, laboratory tests, risk assessments and safety measures before being offered to the public. This COVID-19 jab has been rolled in a few months, without these necessary steps under emergency procedures and out under the guise of a vaccine to the public, so how can they know they are participants in this global experiment and how can they give informed consent? A journal article published in International Journal of Clinical Practice recently published in spring of 2021, shows research that all of these Covid jabs are given without the patient being made aware of the full details on implications and side effects, or that they are part of a trial experiment, therefore they cannot give full informed consent. Furthermore, the CV data will be subjected to distorted beyond the limit of 11 cycle threshold, anything more provides false positives generating increased inaccurate test statistics to keep driving false positives in order to keep the emergency environment to keep the experimental biological agent being administered without the normal safety test criteria.

We are currently living in the largest global experiment taking place on the whole of the human population. This is unprecedented, and should not be taken lightly.

As we know, the experimental biological agent being peddled as a vaccine has been widely administered. Aside from the mercury, cancer cells, (mutagenic MRC-5 cell line), and polyethylene glycol (PEG), the animal and aborted human foetal cells, lets consider the other patented genetic material contained in what is described as innovative medicine by mainstream media and governments, mRNA spike proteins, aluminium nanoparticles contained in the vaccine. Furthermore, another interesting point to consider is the implications of whomever is administered this patented mRNA gene therapy will become property of those who own the mRNA patent.

Listed other ingredients of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine include:
30 mcg of a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA), encoding the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 lipids (0.43 mg (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis (hexane-6,1-diyl) bis (2-hexyldecanoic),
.05 mg 2[polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide
.09 mg 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, and 0.2 mg
cholesterol)
.01 potassium chloride
.01 mg monobasic potassium phosphate
.36 mg sodium chloride
.07 mg dibasic sodium phosphate dehydrate
6 mg sucrose
the diluent (.09 percent Sodium Chloride Injection) contributes an additional 2.16 mg sodium chloride per dose

La Quinta Columna TV have also found large quantities of graphene oxide in these ”vaccines”, mainstream media moguls and sponsored fact checkers rebuttals this is false, however, if one looks at the scientific journals in nanomedicine, one will see it is true.

”Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles (GO-NPs) have been shown to increase leukocyte numbers such as macrophages and T cells. This effect boosts adaptive immunity, thus allowing for a better immune response and viral clearance, or a possible use as vaccine adjuvants. In the scenario of uncontrolled hyperinflammation, nanodiamonds elicit an anti-inflammatory state in macrophages, while carbon and graphene sheets can be repurposed to remove pro-inflammatory cytokines and interleukins from the blood of patients , ”-Nanomedicine: A Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach to COVID-19”. 4th June, 2021. -Arjun Sharma et al.

The same article also states that Nanotechnology is a fast growing industry and the current $60 billion market is expected to double to $120 billion in 5 years.

So far, as revealed in the public domain Moderna’s vaccine, (mRNA-1273) specifically contains lipid nanoparticle dispersion containing an mRNA that encodes for the prefusion of stabilized spike protein 2019-nCoV. mRNA-1273 consists of an mRNA drug substance that is manufactured into LNPs composed of the proprietary ionizable lipid, SM-102, and 3 commercially available lipids, cholesterol, DSPC (1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine is a phosphatidylcholine with alkyl chain comprising 18 carbons), PEG2000 DMG (1,2-
dimyristoyl-rac-glycero-3-methoxypolyethylene glycol-2000). Evidence is emerging that this mRNA gene therapy is liable to cause fertility problems in both men and women. One of the spike proteins in the mRNA gene therapy is called syncytin-1. Which is vital for the formation of human placenta in women. According to how the Covid jab works, the body will form an immune response against the spike protein, this means that the gene therapy is also programming the female body to attack syncytin-1, which could lead to infertility or miscarriages in pregnant women.

”The Covid jab is designed to trigger an immune response ability by its mRNA attacking the covid-19 spike s-protein which contain syncytin-1 homologous proteins: essential for the formation of the placenta. Yet HMRA fails to advise the NHS to check whether a young woman’s syncytin-1 could be targeted by said vaccine. Novelty vaccines can also cause Abs against the HCG antigen or contain ‘beta human chorionic gonadotropin’ (b-HCG) sub unit: Both render a woman to be permanently infertile. Further, which gene is that said mRNA is going to modify? There are (double strained) mRNA vaccines which accidently or aim to cause infertility in animals: e.g., mosquitoes, wild horses and monkeys (as it occurred in Astra Zeneca covid-19 vaccine trial on the monkeys).”-Bartholomeus Lakeman What Do They Know.

Due to the lack of information about the true nature of the COVID-19 jab being presented to a patient who is administered the jab, people are lacking awareness that they are participating in an experiment with an unknown outcome of the consequences on their long-term health, furthermore, they are not being told about the alternative Nobel prize winning Ivermectin as a repurposed successful treatment for preventing early stages of COVID infection, it is a direct violation of the Nuremberg code to suppress other medicines and not inform the patient of alternative options before going ahead with the treatment. The Notice of Liability falls on governments and medics / Healthcare providers/ Pharmaceutical Companies, Doctors, Nurses and anyone peddling this treatment as a viable treatment for SARS without giving full awareness to the patient of the ingredients or what the unknown health consequences could be. For example, the patient is not told what the full spectrum of ingredients of the experimental biological agent are nor are they informed that if anything should go wrong, that there is no way to sue the pharmaceutical manufacturers of the mRNA gene based therapy, as the government has given them a full waiver of liability, which means they have immunity and cannot be sued by any individual who seeks compensation to cover medical costs for vaccine injury or whose family seek compensation for death of the participant. Why should the vaccine manufacturers be given immunity? This which is a big red flag, why would that be required if this treatment is deemed safe?

Under the maxim ‘Primum non nocere’ (first, do no harm) and the Govt’ duty to practice Transparency and Accountability towards its actions, as for the public to come to an informed consent; you have to provide all
necessary data regarding the risks of covid-19 vaccine: including the evidence of that its manufactures provided, and can provide:

Full disclosure of raw data from studies and trails to allow
independent analysis;
Full transparency in relation to safety and efficacy trials;
Full transparency over the vaccine platform(s) and technology used
for commercial vaccines;
Conduct of comprehensive studies evaluating the independent risk
form adjutants (additives);
Full disclosure of vaccine composition in commercial formulations;
Full transparency of all adverse event data in all studies and
post-marketing surveillance;
Clarification of eligibility and criteria for no-fault vaccine
injury payments or compensation;
Clarification of nature and extent of government indemnity if
manufactures in the event in jury;
Public dissemination of extent of naturally acquired (herd)
immunity prior to vaccine roll-out;
Engagement of due democratic process if a vaccination is imposed.

”In case Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency fail to provide the details of abovementioned issues, it implies that the Govt. treats the public health as a political- and corporative financial- commodity and that the Govt, by issuing or imposing said covid-19 vaccine is breaching the Declaration of Helsinki and the Nuremberg Convention’‘.-Bartholomeus Lakeman

”First, we think public health has far too long considered COVID-19 a “public health emergency.” Emergency framing paints COVID-19 as a problem that would, with enough effort, go away quickly, rather than thinking of COVID-19 as a longer-term challenge to be managed in parallel with the full suite of activities that are needed to keep society functioning [3]. A chronic emergency is no emergency at all. It becomes, rather, a justification for not acting rationally….

-”Public health professionals fell short in clear messaging to the public. Failure was not just in the phrasing of recommendations, but also the rationale for each recommendation. What we know changes, and with it what public health as a field would recommend can also change. For example, the initial public health message to not wear a mask was changed months later to its opposite as better evidence came to light, and more masks became available. Changing the public health message is not, in and of itself, problematic, and can be the optimal course [4]. But changing the message becomes deeply problematic if the original and the revised messages do not have a credible rationale.”–George J Annas, EClinicalMedicine.

After voluntariness, the Nuremberg Code highlights “legal capacity to give consent,” combining the elements of information and understanding: the human subject “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.” The required information includes “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/her health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.” These points have sometimes been summarized simply as requiring that consent be voluntary, competent, informed, and understanding.”

”Omitting absolute risk reduction findings in public health and clinical reports of vaccine efficacy is an example of outcome reporting bias, which ignores unfavorable outcomes and misleads the public’s impression and scientific understanding of a treatment’s efficacy and benefits [30]. Furthermore, the ethical and legal obligation of informed consent requires that patients are educated about the risks and benefits of a healthcare procedure or intervention….

”A critical appraisal of phase III clinical trial data for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 and Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 shows that absolute risk reduction measures are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Yet, the manufacturers failed to report absolute risk reduction measures in publicly released documents. As well, the U.S FDA Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) did not follow FDA published guidelines for communicating risks and benefits to the public, and the committee failed to report absolute risk reduction measures in authorizing the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines for emergency use. Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent. ”- Ronald B. Brown Pub Med-

”It has been 70 years since the Nuremberg Code was authored, and federal research regulations received in 2017, their first major revision in almost 30 years. The consent provisions of the revised federal research regulations followed the requirements promulgated by the Nuremberg Code. Of course, research has changed over the past 70 years, and federal regulations reflect changes that the Nuremberg judges did not (and often could not) take into account in drafting the Nuremberg Code. Changes include procedures to permit children (and other populations incapable of consenting) to be used in research, the public’s increased approval of medical research, as reflected in National Institutes of Health budgets; and new technologies for conducting research, including genomic information technology. Although there are strong arguments for modifications, the consent provisions of the revised regulations can be characterized as a memorial to the Nuremberg Code. Born in a war crimes trial, the Nuremberg Code remains at the center of legal and ethical guidance for all legitimate research involving human beings”. –George J. Annas, JD, MPH. American Journal of Public Health

In addition to the flawed PCR tests High cycle thresholds, actually anything over 11 cycles gives distorted results, though uninformed sources say 25 cycles or above, and Ct values, in RT-qPCR test results have been widely acknowledged to lead to a too high false positive (93%). Then there were the pressured and fraudulent death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself is in violation of Article 32 of the Geneva Convention. Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.

Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.
Yet the “vaccine” fails to meet the following 5 “requirements” to be considered a vaccine and is by definition a medical “experiment” and trial:
1. “Provides immunity to the virus”. Yet this is a “leaky” gene-therapy that does not provide immunity to Covid and claims to reduce symptoms yet double-vaccinated are now 60% of the patients requiring AE (ER) or ICU with covid infections.
2. “Protects recipients from getting the virus”. Yet this gene-therapy does not provide immunity and double-vaccinated can still catch and spread the virus.
3. “Reduces deaths from the virus infection”. Yet this gene-therapy does not reduce deaths from the infection. Double-Vaccinated infected with Covid have also died.
4. “Reduces circulation of the virus”. Yet this gene-therapy still permits the spread of the virus as it offers zero immunity to the virus.
5. “Reduces transmission of the virus”. Yet this gene-therapy still permits the transmission of the virus as it offers zero immunity to the virus.

Any other type of binding coercion such as a requirement of a health document to travel such as a vaccine passport or vaccine certificate because it is immediately putting pressure on the unvaccinated to make them get a ”vaccine”, that they quite rightly have concerns about the long term consequences of this experimental biological agent, in order to keep our freedoms to travel or socialize or work, we now have this added extra government pressures, which threaten to deny our freedoms of people to travel, this is a threat to democracy in every country that considers itself a democracy, including the fact to avoid legislating on these vaccine certificates, another violation of the Nuremberg code and the medical law for patient privacy and the prohibition of handing over medical information to any company, person or body, the names of those who are not vaccinated to local authorities or any other harmful legislature.

The next major proposal concerns Institutional Review Boards, IRBs, it appears that the CDC and WHO are treated as such though they aren’t and both are already implicated in conflicts of interest and corruption through being funded by vaccine companies or those stakeholders and investors such as Bill Gates that support COVID -19 jab manufacturers. WHO received 3.4 billion from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. There are too many conflicts of interests in such institutions, media, in government politics, and astroturfed journal articles, which have polluted any ethical or scientific handling of this pandemic with scientism rather than real science. Mainstream media moguls are also implicated, especially companies like the BBC who have been groomed for over a decade with frequent substantial financial sums from The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who are financially sponsoring most of the pro-vaccine main stream media publicity and institutes such as the NHI.

George J. Annas, JD, MPH suggested in his article on reviewing Nuremberg Code changes is to introduce another useful reform which would be a requirement for the majority of the IRB members to be representative of the public (appreciating that this proposal has little current support and will require considerable effort and funding) rather than the current requirement that IRBs have at least 1 member who is not “affiliated with” the institution. Under existing regulations, all members of an IRB could have an inherent conflict of interest because they can be employed by or affiliated with the institution. The judges at Nuremberg would not likely have approved this anti-accountability mechanism.

Example– Nuremberg Code #4: Avoid All Unnecessary Suffering and Injury

Since the rollout of the experiment and listed under the CDC VAERS reporting system over 4,000 deaths and 50,000 vaccine injuries have been reported in America. In the EU over 8,000 deaths and 355,000+ vaccine injuries have been reported at the time of this article being published.

The Yellow Card Reports from the UK at the time of this article are 215,869 Vaccine Injuries, the UK leaves a hazy fog of uncertainty as regards to a clear solid statistic on covid jab related deaths , it presents a number of 1,143 but hints at the possibility of more unregistered deaths by normalizing that several thousand deaths occur ”naturally”, in the elderly after the vaccine and therefore cannot at all be related to the covid jab even if those deaths have not been investigated to see if they are related?

Update on Yellow Card Deaths and Injuries from the 9th of June, 2021 as of the Yellowcard infographic

”Part of our continuous analysis includes an evaluation of natural death rates over time, to determine if any specific trends or patterns are occurring that might indicate a vaccine safety concern. Based on age-stratified all-cause mortality in England and Wales taken from the Office for National Statistics death registrations, several thousand deaths are expected to have occurred, naturally, within 7 days of the many millions of doses of vaccines administered so far, mostly in the elderly.” UK Gov-Yellow Card website

Advice to the British government, if there is a ”pattern” of several thousand deaths in the elderly after covid jab, then don’t administer the jab to the elderly. They are obviously the most vulnerable group and should not be included in an experimental mRNA medical trial. And how can you prove or distinguish if other disorders -General, -Stroke, Blood Clots, Thrombosis, Heart Attacks, Immune, -Muscle/tissue, -Nervous, – Reproduction, Vascular and Infections after vaccination death is when there is a pre-existing comorbidity e.g., Cancer, Kidney, Heart and vascular disease. These, when testing PCR positive are registered as Covid19 death, ( biasing the ‘vaccine’s benefits). Yet when someone dies after a COVID19 shot, they are blamed on pre-existing comorbidities that have not been proven or confirmed, not on the possibility that it could be due to the COVID shot.

”Yellow card report of 5 April 2021, shows that per 1,000,000 covid19 vaccine doses; about 50,000 people had an adverse reaction; 6000 peoples got serious injured (10% might die later), 15 permanent disabled and 35 died. Which sums a fatality risk between 0.004 and 0.04%.” –Bartholomeus Lakeman,

This is a grievous violation of this code. What happened to the Hippocratic Oath of Ethics, – First Do No Harm, (Latin: Primum non nocere). Furthermore, Nuremberg Code #6: Risk Should Never Exceed the Benefit. Clearly, the risks are outweighing the benefits above and beyond.

Any government sponsored doctor that dismisses these deaths and vaccine injuries or any of the other ten violations is a part of this medical tyranny, for supporting this medical experiment.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a consultant cardiologist and Vice Chief of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, TX. He is a Principal Faculty in internal medicine for the Texas A & M University Health Sciences Center.

Dr. McCullough is an internationally recognized authority on the role of chronic kidney disease as a cardiovascular risk state with over 1000 publications and over 500 citations in the National Library of Medicine.

He is the most published scientist in the history of his field. He was recently interviewed by Alex Newman of The New American. During this interview he stated-‘‘A typical new drug at about five deaths, unexplained deaths, we get a black-box warning, your listeners would see it on TV, saying it may cause death. And then at about 50 deaths it’s pulled off the market.’‘

Dr. McCullough compared what is happening today with the experimental COVID shots, which now have 4,178 recorded deaths, according to the CDC themselves, with the last time a vaccine was given an EUA in 1976 during the “Swine Flu Pandemic.”

In 1976 they attempted to vaccinate 55 million Americans with the experimental shot, and it had a recorded 500 cases of paralysis and 25 deaths, and so it was pulled from the market.

”What we are seeing today with so many recorded deaths after the use of experimental pharmaceutical products is unprecedented,’‘ according to Dr. McCullough. Watch the entire interview here:

Nuremberg Code #8: Experiment Must Be Conducted by Scientifically Qualified Persons

Politicians, media and actors claiming that this is a safe and effective vaccine are not qualified. Propaganda is not medical science. Many retail outlets such as Walmart & drive-through vaccine centers are not qualified to administer experimental medical gene-therapies to the uninformed public.

Any other type of binding coercion is a requirement for work, or of a health document for freedom to travel such as a vaccine passport or vaccine certificate, immediately putting pressure on the unvaccinated to make them get a ”vaccine”, that they quite rightly have concerns about the long term consequences of this experimental biological agent, in order to keep their freedoms to earn a living or travel or to socialize or work, we now have this added extra government pressure to deal with. The proposed legislation of vaccine passports or vaccine certificates being rolled out across Europe are a discrimination and violation of the Nuremberg code against anyone who has not been vaccinated, encouraging further medical discrimination. This not only contradicts the Nuremberg Code and the autonomy of the individual human being over his or her body, but also the legislation in force in the Rule of Law, our human rights, medical laws on Patient Privacy, and Common law- including the basic law on the dignity and freedom of the sovereign human being, the law on freedom of occupation, the laws on patients’ rights, the law on equal opportunities at work, the prohibition of discrimination in products, services and the law on access to entertainment and public places, and other laws.

Current governments, social institutions and authorities are pressuring people which violates the laws on matters of equal rights, employment or other matters necessary to prevent bribery, coercion or solicitation of immunization, as well that the object of discrimination, against those who have chosen not to receive the above-mentioned experimental medical treatment.

Returning to the topic of informed consent, this involves in full public education, rather than coercion and manipulation. Professor Annas says this is commonsensical but insufficient: the information supplied to the human subject “shall be in language understandable” to the human subject. Although an improvement over the 1991 version, this still falls short of requiring, as Nuremberg does, that the subject actually understand the information, which is necessary to be able to make an “understanding and enlightened decision.” Operationalizing this requirement would require at a minimum some form of confirming the subject’s actual understanding, such as a series of questions about risks and alternatives (and quizzes are sometimes part of an informed consent process today). Second, the subject “must be provided with the information that a reasonable person would want to have . . . and an opportunity to discuss that information.” .

Moreover, the informed consent must begin with a concise and focused presentation of the key information that is most likely to assist a prospective subject . . . in understanding the reasons why one might or might not want to participate in the research. This part of the informed consent must be organized and presented in a way that facilitates comprehension.

Like “understandable,” the concept of “comprehension” did not appear in the 1991 version of the Nuremberg Code.

If taken seriously, this requirement could spark a radical overhaul of current practices. Consent forms could no longer aim to simply catalog information with a view to protecting the research institution from charges of inadequate disclosure but must instead detail key information that would lead a person to say yes or no to being a research subject. Key information should be seen by IRBs as what the law has termed “material” information: information (like a risk of death or serious bodily harm) that would lead a person to accept or reject a treatment (or, in this case, a research protocol). This suggested interpretation seems reasonable considering the sentence immediately following in the regulations:

Informed consent . . . must be organized and presented in a way that . . . facilitates the prospective participant’s or legally authorized representative’s understanding of the reasons why one might or might not want to participate.

The revised regulations were issued in haste on the last day of the Obama administration and without adequate time to consider the comments on the 2015 proposed changes. Interesting to note this since it was during the Obama administration that Fauci was also financing the gain-to-function research through NIH/Gates funding.

According to Newsweek funding for the WIV occurred in two phases. The first took place from 2014 to 2019, through a $3.7 million project for collecting and studying bat corona viruses. This work was largely led by Dr. Zhengli Shi, known to many as “batwoman” for her years investigating caves in search of new bat viruses.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology undertook coronavirus experiments on mammals captured more than 1,000 miles away in Yunnan which were funded by a 3.7 million grant from the US government. Sequencing of the COVID-19 genome has traced it back to bats found in Yunnan caves but it was first thought to have transferred to humans at an animal market in Wuhan. The revelation that the Wuhan Institute was experimenting on bats from the area already known to be the source of COVID-19 – and doing so with American money – has sparked further fears that the lab, and not the market, is the original outbreak source.

The second phase began shortly after, with another $3.7 million. Unlike the first, this project appears to have included work on “gain-of-function”: research that investigates how a virus can gain the ability to infect a new type of animal.

”The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency”, said Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a co-author of the study.

”The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium.”- Nature, Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research.

Returning to the Nuremberg Code revisions-The statement at the beginning of the 2017 revised regulations is more directly applicable to how they should be interpreted by the federal departments and agencies to which they apply. Whether they apply to a particular activity should be made “consistent with the ethical principles of the Belmont Report.” It is relatively astonishing that the new regulations are justified almost exclusively on the assertion that, since 1991, “the volume and landscape of research involving human subjects have changed considerably. Research with human subjects has grown in scale and become more diverse” but that interpretative guidance is to be sought in a document that is widely acknowledged to be out-of-date.25 Belmont does, however, get us explicitly back to Nuremberg. The first paragraph of the 1979 Belmont Report reads:

Scientific research has produced substantial social benefits. It has also posed some troubling ethical questions. Public attention was drawn to these questions by reported abuses of human subjects in biomedical experiments, especially during the Second World War and shockingly, present day events are on a much larger scale than then.

Of course, the Nuremberg Code only opened the Belmont Report, which consisted primarily of identifying 3 principles of research ethics: autonomy, beneficence, and justice. In reflecting on the Belmont Report 20 years later, in 1999, Al Jonsen quoted Jay Katz, perhaps the world’s leading expert on informed consent, as saying:

Even if the Nuremberg Tribunal had been aware of the tension that has always existed between the claims of science and individual inviolability . . . I hope it would not have modified its first principle, namely, the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. It is this assertion that constitutes the significance of the Nuremberg Code then and now. Only when that principle is firmly put into practice can one address the claims of science and the wishes of society to benefit from science.

Jonsen continues in his own words, “The Belmont Report affirms that view.” Katz always admired the judges at the Doctors’ Trial for insisting on informed consent. He also knew how difficult it was to engage physicians and research subjects in an actual conversation that acknowledged that research was not treatment (rejecting the therapeutic illusion) and that both research and treatment were filled with uncertainties. Today we continue to admire the judges and their code—but must also heed Katz’s warning that actually obtaining voluntary, informed consent requires a meaningful conversation between researcher and subject, and engaging in this conversation remains a major challenge.

The “experimental” coivd19 vaccine is also in violation of all 10 of the Nuremburg Codes which carry the death penalty for those who seek to violate these International Laws.-Bartholomeus Lakeman

Nuremburg Code #1: Voluntary consent is essential: No person should be coerced to take a medical experiment without informed consent. Yet Many media, political and non-medical persons are telling people to take the shot, it’s safe and offer no information as to the adverse effects or dangers of this gene-therapy. Countries are using lockdowns, duress and threats to force people to take this vaccine or be prohibited to participate in free society under the mandate of a Vaccine Passport or Green Pass. During the Nuremberg trail, even the media was prosecuted and members were put to death for lying to the public amongst many of the doctors and Nazis found guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.

Nuremburg Code #2: Yield fruitful results unprocurable by other means: As listed above, the gene-therapy does not meet the criteria of a vaccine and does not offer immunity to the virus. There are other medical treatments that yield fruitful results against Covid such as Ivermectin, hydroxy-chloroquine, Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Zinc and boosted immune systems for flu and colds.

Nuremburg Code #3: Base experiments on results of animal experimentation and natural history of disease: This gene-therapy skipped Animal testing and went straight to human trials. In mRNA research that Pfizer used a candidate study on mRNA with rhesus macaques monkeys using BNT162b2 mRNA and in that study all the monkeys developed pulmonary inflammation but the researchers considered the risk low as these were young healthy monkeys from the age of 2-4. Israel has used Pfizer and the International Court of Law has accepted a claim for 80% of the recipients having pulmonary inflammation from being injected with this gene-therapy. Despite this alarming development Pfizer proceeded to develop their mRNA for Covid without animal testing.

Nuremburg Code #4: Avoid all unnecessary suffering and injury: Since the rollout of the experiment and listed under the CDC VAERS reporting system over 4,000 deaths and 50,000 vaccine injuries have been reported in America. In the EU over 7,000 deaths and 365,000 vaccine injuries have been reported. This is a grievous violation of this code.

Nuremburg Code #5: No experiment to be conducted if there’s reason to think injury or death will occur: See #4, based on fact-based medical data this gene-therapy is causing death and injury. Past research on mRNA also shows several risks that have been ignored for this current trial gene-experiment. A 2002 study on Sars-Cov spike proteins showed they cause inflammation, immunopathology, blood clots and impede Angiotensin 2 expression. This experiment forces the body to produce this spike-protein inheriting all these risks.

N-Code #6: Risk should never exceed the benefit: Covid-19 has a 98-99% recover rate. The vaccine injuries, deaths and adverse side-effects of mRNA gene-therapy far exceed this risk. The use of “leaky” vaccines was banned for agriculture use by the US and EU due to the Marek Chicken study that shows ‘hot-viruses’ and variants emerge making the disease even more deadly. Yet, this has been ignored for human use by the MHRA knowing fully the risk of new deadlier variants emerge from leaky vaccinations.

N- Code #7: Preparation must be made against even remote possibility of injury, disability or death: There were no preparations made. This gene-therapy was approved under an Emergency Use only act, skipped animal and human trials and forced on a misinformed public.

N- Code #8: Experiment must be conducted by scientifically qualified persons: Politicians, media and actors claiming that this is a safe and effective vaccine are not qualified. Propaganda is not medical science. Many retail outlets as vaccine centres are not qualified to administer experimental medical gene-therapies to the uninformed public.

N- Code #9: Anyone must have the freedom to bring the experiment to an end at any time: Despite the outcry of over 85,000 doctors, nurses, virologists, epidemiologist the experiment is not being ended. In fact, more attempts to change laws to force vaccine compliance, mandatory and forced vaccinations are being pushed through, and experimental ‘update’ shots are planned for every 6 months without any recourse to the surmountable number of deaths and injuries already caused by this experiment.

N- Code #10: The Scientist must bring the experiment to an end at any time if there’s Probable Cause of it resulting in injury or death: It is clear in the statistical reporting data that this experiment is resulting in death and injury yet all the politicians, drug companies and so-called experts are not making any attempt to stop this gene-therapy experiment from inflicting harm on a misinformed public.

Thanks to the work of George J. Annas, JD, MPH and Bartholomeus Lakeman in shaping of this article.

Research

Henckaerts JM, Doseald-Beck L. Customary International Humanitarian Law Vol. 1: Rules. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
Annas GJ, Grodin MA. The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human Rights in Human Experimentation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1992. [Google Scholar]
Skloot R. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York, NY: Crown; 2010. [Google Scholar]
Annas GJ, Glantz LH, Katz BF. Informed Consent to Human Experimentation: The Subject’s Dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger; 1977. [Google Scholar]
Jones DS, Grady C, Lederer SE. “Ethics and clinical Research”: the 50th Anniversary of Beecher’s bombshell. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(24):2393–2398. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Katz J. The Nuremberg code and the Nuremberg trial: a reappraisal. JAMA. 1996;276(20):1662–1666. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Beecher HK. Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1966;274(24):1354–1360. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Glantz LH. The influence of the Nuremberg code on US statutes and regulations. In: Annas GJ, Grodin MA, editors. The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1992. pp. 183–200. [Google Scholar]
Department of Health and Human Services. Federal Register. Vol. 82, no. 12, 7259 et seq.; January 19, 2017; Human Subjects Research Protection, Rules and Regulations. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/pdf/2017-01058.pdf#page=111. Accessed October 2, 2017.
Annas GJ. Privacy rules for DNA databanks: protecting coded “future diaries.” JAMA. 1993;270(19):2346–2350. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Glantz L, Roche P, Annas GJ. Rules for donation to tissue banks—what’s next? N Engl J Med. 2008;358(3):298–303. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Louisiana State University Law Center. Final report of the Tuskegee syphilis ad hoc advisory panel. Available at: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/history/reports/tuskegee/tuskegee.htm. Accessed October 2, 2017.
Hudson KL. Genomics, health care, and society. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(11):1033–1041. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hudson KL, Collins FS. Biospecimen policy: family matters. Nature. 2013;500(7461):141–142. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Schneider CE. The Censor’s Hand: The Misregulation of Human-Subject Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2015. [Google Scholar]
Havel V, Vladislav J. Living in Truth: Twenty-Two Essays Published on the Occasion of the Award of the Erasmus Prize to Vaclav Havel. London, UK: Faber and Faber; 1987. [Google Scholar]
Annas GJ. Why we need a national human experimentation agency. Account Res. 1999;7(2–4):293–302. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Annas GJ, Annas CL. Legally blind: the therapeutic illusion in the support study of extremely premature infants. J Contemp Health Law Policy. 2013;30(1):1–36. [Google Scholar]
Andrews L. I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy. New York, NY: Free Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]
HHS Docket ID HHS-OPHS-2015-008. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Human Subjects Protection (NPRM) to Jerry Menikoff from Annas GJ, Glantz LH, Grodin MA, December 9, 2015.
Annas GJ. Informed consent: charade or choice? J Law Med Ethics. 2017;45(1):10–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genetics. Science. 2013;340(6136):1049–1050. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Posner GL, Ware J. Mengele: The Complete Story. New York, NY: Cooper Square Press; 1986. [Google Scholar]
Proctor RN. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1988. [Google Scholar]
Cassell EJ. The principles of the Belmont Report revisited: how have respect for persons, beneficence, and justice been applied to clinical medicine? Hastings Cent Rep. 2000;30(4):12–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
US Department of Health and Human Services. The Belmont Report. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html. Accessed October 2, 2017.
Louisiana State University Medical Research Law Project. Birth of the Belmont Report. Available at: https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/research/nbac/transcripts/jul98/belmont.html. Accessed October 2, 2017.
Katz J. The Silent World of Doctor and Patient. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
Katz J. Human sacrifice and human experimentation: reflections at Nuremberg. Yale J Int Law. 1997;22:401. [Google Scholar]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7832607/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33521607/
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/verified_health_benefit_data_of?unfold=1

Related Articles

THE NUREMBERG CODE [from Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military
Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946–April 1949.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949–1953.]

What is in the PCR tests?

Dr Yeadon Uncensored

The International Criminal Court the Hague has accepted the claim of Violation of the Nuremberg Code, of the Israeli government

CORONA INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE: DR. Reiner Fuellmich and Vera Sharav

Dr Breggin on China’s connection to the World’s Richest

World Renowned Scientist used Bayesian analysis on SARS-CoV-2 to find it is of Lab Origin

Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science

Unravelling the Technocracy Censorship of Free Speech

Lockdowns and Business Closure Found to be Scientifically Proven Ineffective

Weaponized Mycoplasma

A Recipe for Next Generation Warfare

22 Scientists Debunked the Science behind PCR test accuracy