History, and Beginnings of the Code

On September 15, 1935, the Nazi party introduced the Nuremberg Laws to facilitate the principles of Nazi ideology. The Nuremberg Race Laws, for example, allowed doctors to act without their patients’ express consent in medical procedures.

Additional laws were subsequently passed, such as the “Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor,” which systematically removed the medical rights of patients.

Following the Nazi atrocities committed during World War II, war crime trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany which gave rise to the principles that guide the Nuremberg Code.

These principles essentially meant that even a head of state would not be considered to be above the law. Furthermore, the fact that actions might have been considered legal at the time would not provide relief to the person from justice under international law.

In particular, the medical experiments conducted by the Nazi doctors led to the creation of strict rules and ethical principles regarding future human scientific trials, including the right to informed consent and freedom from coercion or threat with regard to any medical procedure or treatment.

We already practice this

As we all know, before receiving a surgical procedure, there is a legal and ethical requirement that the patient be properly informed of any significant potential risks, including infection, bleeding, nerve damage, or even death.

The patient usually signs the consent form following this explanation. And, as we all know, whenever we receive prescription medication, we are notified of the potential risks on a package insert and, usually a discussion with the Pharmacist.

The vaccines should be no different, yet they are. A person about to receive the jab is rarely told that there are risks of blood clots, bleeding, cerebral thrombosis, myocarditis, and death, yet those risks exist.

Watch from 12:58 until 17:40 of this interview with Dr. Peter McCullough.

Related Articles:

• Open Letter to Dr June Raine, Chief Executive, MHRA – UK Freedom Project
• Beyond Ivermectin: Censoring Medical Journals
  

Testing, Trials, Safety, and Informed Consent

Additionally, The Nuremberg code states that:

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

The COVID-19 “vaccines” however, skipped animal testing.

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

According to government data from VAERS, EUDRA and the MHRA, there have already been hundreds of thousands of adverse events and deaths reported. 

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.

Past trials have shown that MRNA “vaccines” cause a body to attack itself. This condition is known as ‘Antibody Dependent Enhancement’, or ADE. 

We happen to know that 63% of South African GP’s declined the government’s health worker COVID-19 “vaccine”, and we would love to know why, and also why they didn’t speak up to voice their concerns.

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

COVID-19 has a 98% to 99% survival rate. Previous vaccine campaigns stopped after as few as 25 people died. In less than four months, more people had died due to COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ than as a result of all other vaccines COMBINED since 1976!

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

Generally speaking, however, there are no preparations made. Vaccination stations are set up in pharmacies and schools where no doctors are present or equipment to resuscitate a patient are provided.

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 with the experiment.

We constantly hear the opinions, advice, warnings and guidance of the so-called government “experts” on COVID-19 in the mainstream media, while doctors such as Dr. Peter McCullough who is the most peer-reviewed doctor on the subject of COVID-19 was not consulted by the American government despite many approaches and offers to help from his side.

The advice and research-findings of highly qualified and eminent scientists and doctors is ignored and suppressed.

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.

May we please enquire how the above lines up with employees being dismissed due to their refusal to comply with COVID-19 “vaccine mandates” while the government, trade unions and the majority of the medical fraternity comply and stand idly by…

During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepaired 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 judgement required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability or death to the experimental subject.

Well, the data was in long ago. According to previous protocols, the COVID-19 “vaccines” should have been halted in February 2021 based on the death reports received by that date.

Attorney Hannah Rose notes in point 40 of her 46-page legal filing to the International Criminal Court on December 6, 2021 that the ethical standards of the Nuremberg Code place an obligation on physicians and pharmaceutical manufacturers to abide by its principles. And, consequently, any physician or research scientist found to have breached any of the ten principles of the Nuremberg Code is criminally liable.

Rose also notes in point 42 –

The first principle of the Nuremberg Code is a willingness and informed consent by the person to receive treatment and participate in an experiment. The person is supposed to activate freedom of choice without the intervention, either through force, deceit, fraud, threat, solicitation, or any other type of binding or coercion.

Unfortunately, when government and private sector promote, exhort and mandate us to take these so-called “COVID-19 vaccines”, the vaccinated are not advised, that in practice, they are taking part in a medical experiment and that their consent is required under the Nuremberg Code. 

Additionally, a key principle of the Nuremberg Code requires that a scientist must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe that the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject. Unfortunately, we have access to proof from VAERS of significant and unprecedented numbers of deaths and adverse events attributed to the COVID-19 “vaccines”. This US government data provides incontrovertible proof that the COVID-19 “vaccines” could categorically never be considered safe and yet, their use continues unrestricted.

Says Rose with reference to the COVID-19 ”vaccines” –

This as a matter of fact is a genetic medical experiment on human beings performed without informed consent under a severe and blatant offence of the Nuremberg Code.