Since December 2020, we have been involved in – or subjected to – what is verifiably the biggest experimental drug programme in recorded history. That is not hyperbole; it's an objective reality. At the time of writing, around 300 million people across the globe have had at least one shot of one of the vaccines. The declared intention is to vaccinate everybody.
Just think about that for a moment. It's very easy to lose our bearings, when the fear and panic are being ladled onto us every day; that tactic is so ubiquitous that it cannot, realistically, be anything other than intentional. Experimental drugs, in ongoing Stage III clinical trials, (two of which have already been temporarily suspended), no available long term data. Yet governments are telling us that we must be injected with these ‘vaccines’ and, if we don't agree, we won't be welcome in polite society. Do you think any of that is an exaggeration?
First, some terminology. These 'vaccines' are not vaccines. They are experimental, gene-based treatments. They were not designed to prevent you from getting Covid, merely to offset the effects if you were relatively young and moderately ill. Even if you wish to dispute this statement by using a wider definition of the word, these drugs cannot be labelled vaccines until clinical trials have been completed. Which they haven't.
This is not a pedantic argument. Calling them vaccines confers on them a legitimacy that they have not earned. It also serves to disguise the truth as Stage III clinical trials were not conducted prior to authorization, no matter how hard the state obfuscates. For one thing, the demographic mix was not sufficient to objectively claim otherwise.
Don't believe me? From the FDA itself, referencing when the 'vaccines' would be given an Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA):
“When the phase 3 portion of the human clinical trials reaches a predetermined point that informs how well a vaccine prevents Covid 19....”(1)
Not when the trials have finished; when they reach a predetermined point. And note the unintentional confirmation bias contained in that statement; the drugs are already being referred to as vaccines, even before an evaluation of their effectiveness. Nonetheless, one must conclude that even the FDA has had to acknowledge that Phase III trials had not been completed. This makes the drugs experimental. And that is a very important distinction. Because if they're experimental, they are bound by the Nuremberg Code.
This is where ‘vaccine’ apologists will throw up their hands in frustration, partly because you've reminded them that it exists. Having had to accept that some words were written on some pieces of paper and that nations, including all of Western Europe and the US, signed those papers, they may resort to arguments about inapplicability, or that it's outdated because the framers couldn't possibly have foreseen our current circumstances or to the favorite trope de jour, which is that this pandemic is so urgent, it trumps everything else.
As will be seen, none of those are viable arguments. The Code seeks to set out what is, and what is not, acceptable in the field of medical experiments on 'human subjects' and, although rarely explicitly referenced or widely known (probably because what it states is so uncontroversial), it has formed part of the bedrock of medical ethics for the past seventy years;
Within the preamble, there is a recognition of the risk/reward equation, a nod to proponents of medical experimentation who believe it is necessary for the overall good of society, an undertaking that doctors are to avoid actions that cause unnecessary pain and suffering or injure patients. There is plenty of room for manoeuvre so far; clearly, what constitutes 'unnecessary' is a subjective judgment, and 'the good of society' is so broad a concept as to be virtually meaningless.
Sensing, perhaps, that a spot of specificity was in order, the Code goes on to say that voluntary consent was not negotiable and had to be given
“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.”(2)
An enlightened decision was further defined and one of conditions was that the subject was to be informed of
“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.”(3)
Among further stipulations, there should be no experiment (or further experiment) if there is good reason to believe that it causes death or serious injury and
“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.”(4)
If we step away from the pandemic, just for a moment...ignore the special pleading...focus on these fundamental rights...and, relax. We can argue about risk and reward, dispute whether the obvious injuries inflicted are 'necessary' and have a raging debate about the how much we can expect the citizen to contribute to the 'good of society'.
However, if we examine what we have being told about the effects of the vaccinations, if we ask whether the experiment is 'designed and based on the results of animal experiments', whether any knowledge of the history of the disease has played a part in decision making and thereby informed us that the experiment is likely to be a success; objectively, none of those stipulations have been met.
Trials in animals and Phase I trials in humans overlapped. They did not run sequentially.(5) That is a breach of the Code. And in light of that breach, there was no way to judge whether prospective results justified the human trials. We have been repeatedly told that this is a 'novel' coronavirus; what historical knowledge has guided us then? Further, if you, as a subject, have no way of knowing what the long term effects may be, how can an enlightened decision be made? Isn't it clear that the introduction of vaccine passports and the uses to which they will be put is overreach, a form of coercion?
By the way, this has nothing to do with the US Constitution and any argument about state and corporate actions. This is an internationally recognized agreement, signed by the state. If it isn't constitutionally simpatico, we have more problems than I thought.
The only part of the Code that the state is referencing is the balance of risk and reward. They are doing that because, on that subject, the wording in an EUA echoes the Nuremberg Code. But they are not doing it honestly. The Code sets out certain stipulations, which explicitly inform that decision, provisions that must be referenced in weighing whether an experiment meets the ethical standard or not.
But the state is ignoring them and hoping you don't notice. They are taking on the judgement with reference to their own, subjective values. These values are not made clear; as is so often the way, we are getting the decision without any idea of how it is made.
If someone wishes to make you ignore an agreement, there may be three primary methods employed. One acknowledges the existence of the agreement, but argues that it is not relevant to the current situation, because what is happening now could not have been foreseen. The second method is to argue that you have completely misunderstood the terms of the agreement and it just doesn't apply to the current situation. The third is to ignore the existence of the agreement entirely. Governments, if challenged, have gone for option 3, as it is far safer not to get into a debate on the details, which might not go so well. Options 1 or 2 remain available as fall-backs, if necessary.
If you think the framers of the Code were only concerned with war time experimentation or that they couldn't have foreseen a global pandemic, you're wrong on both counts. The Geneva Convention on wartime ethics dates from 1949 and the people writing the Nuremberg Code were mostly young adults in 1918 when the Spanish Flu was rampaging across the world, unchecked. The Code enunciates basic human rights, applicable in any age.
Back to the present. All of the patients in all of the ‘vaccine’ clinical trials were experimented on in flagrant breach of the Nuremberg Code. That's not just an opinion; it's objective reality. And anybody being injected now is in the same position, as we are still partaking in trials.
That can't be so? It doesn't apply to us? It was written with other people in mind? The Germans and the Japanese in World War II. Not Brits or Americans. We would never do anything like that. Ever heard of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment? Between 1932 and 1972, the US Public Health Service conducted a study into syphilis in African American males. The subjects of the study, all plagued by the disease, were told they were receiving treatment, but they were given placebos instead and then observed. A six month experiment lasted for forty years. Of 399 patients, 128 died, even though penicillin was available from 1947.
They were not given experimental drugs, so the Nuremberg Code was not breached. But the ethical violations are of the same genus as today's. They were an experiment; so are we. Drugs were denied; this time, it's necessary for drugs to be supplied instead.
This pandemic does not justify the trampling of fundamental rights. It didn't, even in prospect, and by December 2020, any unbiased, objective assessment would have been even less likely to approve an extension of the existing experiment. It doesn't matter where you stand on what actions are permissable in the service of the 'common good'. The Nuremberg Code is the standard for human rights in medical experimentation and we are in breach.
Citations