https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/08/nullifying_nuremberg.html
August 1, 2021
Nullifying Nuremberg
By Pennel Bird
Dr. Josef Mengele is one of the true monsters of history. His
profoundly evil medical experiments on Jews, the disabled, the mentally
impaired, and other Third Reich
deplorables are the stuff of pitch-black fever dreams. Combining
disparate elements of pernicious ideologies including eugenics,
antisemitism, racial purity, and the German ideal of lebensraum ("room for living"), what eventually became Nazism informed Hitler's ethos as he rose to power. His malignant weltanschauung eventually coalesced into the Final Solution.
Hitler's infernal vision metastasized quickly to infect the belief
systems of top-tier Nazis. Among other atrocities, Mengele used
injections to attempt to change the eye color of his "patients" to blue
to render them more Aryan. When these experiments went sideways, the
fiendish M.D. demonstrated a penchant for "tidying up." One person
testified to having witnessed the diabolical doctor kill fourteen sets
of twins in one night with chloroform injections to the heart in order
to make comparative post-mortem observations.
After the Allies won the war, the Nuremberg Trials were convened to
assess the astonishing breadth of the human tragedy as authored by
Hitler and his henchmen and mete out punishment for their actions. The
cruelty and depravity of Mengele and others, including Adolf Eichmann,
shocked the world, were almost beyond reckoning, and subsequently
inspired the establishment of the Nuremberg Code — which was tacitly
endorsed by nearly every nation on earth.
The ten points of the Nuremberg Code for human experimentation are as follows:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is essential.
This means that the person involved should have the 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, over-reaching, 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 effects upon
his health or person, which may come from his participation in the
experiment.
2. 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.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.
6. 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.
7. Proper preparations should be made, and adequate facilities
provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote
possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
All COVID vaccines emergency authorized by the FDA
have not yet been approved and are experimental, as they have undergone
no long-term safety trials. Safety data are being partially collected
in real time as adverse events are reported to VAERS. The
tenets of the Nuremberg Code apply here as these vaccines are — by
definition — a medical experiment being administered worldwide.
Given that, the explicit statement in #1 that subjects not be subject to coercion
raises the question: does the threat of losing one's job, not being
able to attend college, or not being able to travel or attend a live
event constitute coercion? Does the president of the United States
urging Americans to "get the shot" and then threatening to send
emissaries door to door to "encourage" it constitute coercion? Is it
coercion to establish two Americas in which one half that chooses
vaccination gets to eschew masks and move about freely, while the other
half that doesn't must stay masked and have their essential freedoms
proscribed?
Later in #1, the text explicitly states that the subject must be made
aware of "the effects upon his health or person." This is known as
informed consent: patients need to be made fully aware of the potential
dangers of a medical procedure in keeping with the Hippocratic
oath. There have been many reports of adverse events from the COVID
vaccines, including Bell's palsy, seizures, blood clotting, heart
inflammation, and death. How many people reading this who got the
vaccine had these potential side effects explained to them before
getting jabbed? How many were afforded informed consent?
The second bullet point dictates the experiment (COVID vaccine)
"should be so designed and based on the results of animal
experimentation." In an alarming break with decades of convention, the
Pfizer and Moderna animal trials were run concurrently with human
trials. The human trials were not a result of animal trials, giving the
manufacturers a chance to make safety adjustments, which constitutes a
violation of the Nuremberg Code.
The fifth bullet point states that no experiment (the experimental
vaccine in this case) should be given if there's reason to believe it
could cause a disabling injury or death. With over 400,000 adverse
events and 9,000 unconfirmed deaths from COVID vaccines reported to
VAERS, is there reason to believe the COVID vaccines violate the
Nuremberg Code in yet another way?
The eighth bullet point emphasizes the "highest degree of skill and
care" by "scientifically qualified persons" when administering the
vaccine. Do pharmacists fit that profile? Do school nurses? How about
the folks jabbing people motoring through drive-thru clinics? Does the
fact that they all enjoy total liability protection from vaccine injury
and death give pause?
The last bullet point emphasizes that the administering agent should
exercise caution in fulfillment of the Hippocratic oath by terminating
treatment if there is reason to believe that further treatment could
cause "injury, disability or death." There are countless stories of
people having an adverse reaction to the first of two shots — but being
encouraged to continue with the second shot anyway. Many of these
unfortunates suffered debilitating, lifelong injuries — or death — after
the second vaccine. Meanwhile, instances of doctors or health care
workers erring on the side of caution and advising against the second
shot for these vulnerable patients are vanishingly rare.
It is increasingly clear that the powerful principles and precepts of
the Nuremberg Code have been flouted, even decimated, by those seeking
to push the COVID vaccines on every single person on Earth. Foremost
among these is the caution against coercion. Those who resist the
anti-American and anti-human idea of a one-size-fits-all medical
treatment are freedom-fighters for the obvious and inherent right to
choose for themselves. That this is no longer self-evident is deeply
alarming.
It is a well-worn aphorism that those who forget their past are
condemned to repeat it. Despite mounting evidence of serious adverse
events and death, are we doing just that in our increasingly desperate
attempts to use coercion to vaccinate absolutely everyone?
Are we nullifying the Nuremberg Code?
