Fact Checked by Choice Vitality
We have seen much opposition in the last six months to a year over Covid and the quackcination. And now cases are starting to make their gallant way into our midst.
A term that is being commonly thrown out there is the Nuremberg Code. Some of these court cases are using it now and with good reason. What is this code and why is it so significant?
Honestly, I had to look it up myself. I had heard of it but I did not really know what it was about. It has been around since 1947 and was a direct result from Nazism in Germany.
The basis of the Nuremberg Code is around informed consent. It was developed from the atrocities of World War II where experiments were performed on people that were held as prisoners in Nazi concentration camps who did not consent. Sixteen doctors were tried and convicted of these crimes.
The Nuremberg Code was drawn up to stop this in the future. More than 70 years have passed since this code was drawn up. Some have used in it the court. Some successful, others were not. But some are using this code to challenge vaccinations and vaccine passports.
This statement has signalled a tonne of chatter from both sides of the issue. Those wanting mandatory vaccination claim it’s not a violation of the Nuremberg Code. While those opposed feel the lack of informed consent indicates it is. Soon we will see what the court will decide on this code.
Before we explore why, let’s look at a summary of the code first.
Summary taken from National Institute of Health
The Nuremberg Code
- 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, 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 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.
- 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.
- 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 will justify the performance of the experiment.
- The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
- 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.
- 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.
- Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
- 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.
- 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 seemed to him to be impossible.
- 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 judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
How do we apply this to the Covid Quackcination?
Technically, the Covid Quackination is not approved for regular use. It is approved for emergency use world wide. This in itself does not violate the Nuremberg Code.
Where it gets sketchy is the lack of informed consent. Point one talks about informed consent. And as some opponents to this vaccination have pointed out, the informed consent handed out by some health authorities, doctors, nurses and pharmacies is rather lacking in detail and does not illustrate the full potential (good or bad) of this quackcination. No one knows what the end result would be. Point one is adamant on the whole realm of consent.
And today there is a parallel to Germany in World War II as we see people lining up for hours to receive the quack like the Jews were marched up in lines to their death or to experiments without their consent. The people today may think they were adequately consenting. But many found out they were not informed properly.
Is the Covid quackcination an experiment? Yes it is. This is phase three testing. And you, the population are its subjects.
Point two talks about the experiment must be fruitful. Is the Covid Quackcination fruitful when the death rate in the US alone in an under reported passive reporting system exceeds 12 000 people in six months? Is it fruitful when more than 46 000 people (by the VAERS data in the US) are injured. Is it fruitful when they are still saying that quackcinated people can still obtain the infection. And is it fruitful when it is triggering new variants that are trying to mutate in order to stay alive.
This is not to mention the allergic reactions, permanent disabilities and infections that have resulted. It is estimated that more than 100 000 in the USA and Canada each have died by the hands of this Quackcination. Yet officials are still singing that it is safe. Ask those that were injured if it is so safe.
Point three says it must be based on animal experiments. Did you know that many, if not all, skipped the animal trials in their experiments and went straight to human studies in Phase Two? You may be against animal experimentation but it is irresponsible to skip it altogether and inject a human with a trial substance that has actually never made it to market in any form in the past.
Points four through seven all deal with risk, injury and death. For phase three testing we have a significant death and injury toll. Yet people are still marching in for their jab. Many of the injuries and deaths are being explained away as other means.
No experiment should be conducted on anyone if it is continuing to cause these effects. And for most, there is either no compensation or the compensation is a measly amount depending on your country.
If the passive system like VAERS is under reported, how high is the death and injury rate? Has it really been less that the Covid infection itself?
Point eight refers to qualified personal conducting the experiment. It is debatable, as to who is monitoring phase three trials. Who is recording the data? It is being left to a passive voluntary system that typically has been found to report less than one percent of injuries? Some may argue that doctors and nurses are following through in this but are they submitting the data obtained by phase three studies?
Point nine is really interesting. It summarizes that the subject has the right to bring the experiment to an end. But as for the nature of these quackcinations, stopping this experiment is impossible for them. It possible for the injury to continue indefinitely. Their life could potentially become a living hell with no real end to the suffering.
In point ten it talks about the professional being prepared to discontinue the experiment. This does not seem to be happening. Just the opposite is occurring. People are calling for mandating a quackcination that is injuring and even killing more people in six months than all other vaccination put together over several decades.
So there we have it. A summary of technically all the codes that this Covid 19 Quackcination could have potentially violated. Yes, that’s right, it is potentially all ten.
Proponents to mandatory quackcination do not feel it has violated any and they base it on the fact that this quackcination is no longer experimental. But it is experimental. And even as Phase three continues in some older age groups, phase two experiments have continued in younger age groups.
Consent it limited. And the death and injury rate is high. Masquerading this quackcination as something it is not is purely irresponsible.
You decide for yourself if the Nuremberg code has been violated.
(Some words have been modified to reduce censorship on the topic)