Are Violating The Nuremberg Codes Being Violated?

The Nuremberg Codes set down medical codes following the atrocities committed in Nazi Germany. It was largely successful thanks to the medical community. It is not binding but widely accepted as a base to which nations could protect citizens from unwanted medical procedures.

Here, I assert the codes have been violated.

Let's look at each code and decide.

1 - 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. NThis 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.

I don't see how anyone could come away with the fact that we've completely violated the first code through 'no jab, no job' and widespread vaccine mandates threatening the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people if not millions across the West.

It is unethical and immoral on a grand scale.

Let's humanize the point using an illustration since the tactic used by officials and media is to dehumanize people (ie pitting people against the unvaccinated or 'unclean', and asserting one's selfishness for not accepting the procedure on specious premises of 'collective good'. The latter being the essence of collectivist ideology like Nazism and fascism). 

A person becomes chooses a career path of nursing. They earn their credentials in school while the state trains them. They become a trusted figure in the community. This offers financial stability and job security and permits them to start a family and buy a house. They're now committed to the system and abide by rules and laws of life. Then, suddenly, this is taken from them. A family is created and mortgages are taken. They now are faced with the prospect of not being able to provide for their family.

This is the heart of the violation my view. How one person can support forced vaccination against the will of another is something that should concern society as a whole.

The justification for it is borne less from science and strictly from fear and demand for compliance.

A mandate is force. It also has come with fraud and deceit. People are confused with exactly what the shots are. Some believe it's 'two-shots' and done but that's not what the government has in mind with boosters. And with the introduction of passports, they now have another much more ominous tool of repression at their disposal to compel people into taking an injection against their will. 'Take it or else you can't shop or work' is extortion in its primal, classic form. No one know the long-term impacts and what the ingredients really are. And even if they do, can't really know how each can harm them. Are they really being told the full list of potential side effects in detail? People do not know the duration of the program other than the vague 'get vaccinated to end the pandemic'. Except, what happens when it doesn't? Has it been made clear this is an 'experimental gene therapy' mRNA technology used for the first time in humans?

The first code has been violated without much doubt.

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.

Here, theory and reality collide. Has the vaccination program yielded 'fruitful results'? Depends what one means by 'fruitful results'. For me, it would mean, first off, an immediate halt of transmission and conferring full immunity. The experimental vaccines accomplish neither. Weighed against the adverse events and deaths, the one benefit is too potentially weaken symptoms. Does this justify a campaign of coercive measures? I submit it does not.

Still more egregious is the denial of people's rights to mobility and even access basic necessities via passports systems despite a complete lack of transparency and scientific rationale for it other than to coerce people into a medical procedure they do not want. 

Are they 'unnecessary in nature'? With natural immunity (which has been denied by officials thus adding another element of the violations being committed) offering broad protection (as opposed to the specified protection offered by the injections) combined with the very high survival rate (known before the vaccine roll out) as well as available early treatments, it can be claimed the necessity of it through the prism of mandates is questionable. If natural immunity and treatments are available, in other words, vaccination should be explained as a complement to the goal of protecting people. Not as a means to a medical end.

3 - 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.

According to experts concerned about the experimental injections, the results of animal testing has not been satisfied. It is worth noting every coronavirus prior to these have failed during animal trials due to ADE. 

Furthermore, it was well known among virologists (and now being reported) that Covid-19 would eventually become endemic and another strain of the 'common cold'. 

With this, is the risk of taking a 'jab' with unknown long-term effects and a growing list of shot-term negative outcomes worth it for an endemic virus with a high survival rate?

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

There have been repeated and numerous  examples of people being forced into taking the procedure against their will particularly among the handicapped, elderly and children. 

5- 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

There is ample evidence available via government reporting systems that death and injury are occurring. In fact, the rate of injury and deaths are such that they surpass all outcomes from past years combined.

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.

To be determined. However, we're seeing more and more evidence of the cure being worse than the disease.

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

Injections have been administered from buses, vans and makeshift facilities as well as pharmacies and box stores. It is hard to imagine a unified standard of quality of care has been established in this scenario. It's possible not all of this code has been satisfied.

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.

While it's difficult to ascertain to be the case across the board, it has been said the injections have not been properly administered regardless of qualification in some cases.

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.

Not if their employment depends on it. To say nothing of social ostracism and other societal and group pressures. It is the equivalence of extracting a confession from a suspect under duress which is against the law.

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.

The medical establishment in charge will not be ceasing the experiment. Why this is so demands further investigation delving into conflicts of interests, acting during a moral panic and outright dogmatic acceptance of the procedure's claim to be beneficial. 

On the balance, it is my belief the Nuremberg codes have been violated.

It is not acceptable to assert these codes were created for a specific event in history. The codes mean what they say, and they say what they mean.

It is not difficult to apply these simple codes to the current situation and conclude what I have done here.

*****

The Declaration of Helsinki is also non-binding but is considered a foundational document in the world of medical ethics and considered a 'property of all humanity.' However, it is more focused on medical research.  Again, there's a strong focus on consent. The decision should be made between a medical practitioner and a patient. The government has no business intervening on any grounds whatsoever fo obvious reasons. Government is force and it can compel people to do things against their will based on the  whims of the state. This must never be allowed to take root.

Just an FYI.