The Nuremberg Code<\/h2>\n
The indictment of the defendants was filed on October 25, 1946, 25 days after the conclusion of the first Nuremberg trial by the International Military Tribunal. The ‘Doctors’ Trial’ began on December 9, 1946, and ended on July 19, 1947.<\/p>\n
The main trial at Nuremberg after World War II was conducted by the International Military Tribunal. The tribunal was made up of judges from the four allied powers (the United States, Britain, France, and the former Soviet Union) and was charged with trying Germany’s major war criminals. After this first-of-its-kind international trial, the United States conducted 12 additional trials of representative Nazis from various sectors of the Third Reich, including law, finance, ministry, and manufacturing, before American Military Tribunals, also at Nuremberg.<\/p>\n
The first of these trials, (the Doctors’ Trial), involved 23 defendants, all but 3 of whom were physicians accused of murder and torture in the conduct of medical experiments.<\/p>\n
Quoted from the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL of MEDICINE:<\/p>\n
\n1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.<\/p>\n
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. 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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 will justify the performance of the experiment.<\/p>\n
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research.<\/strong><\/h4>\n
The Code was formulated 50 years ago, in August 1947, in Nuremberg, Germany, by judges sitting in judgment of Nazi doctors accused of conducting murderous and torturous human experiments (the so-called Doctors’ Trial) It served as a blueprint for today’s principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research. Because of its link with the horrors of World War II and the use of prisoners in Nazi concentration camps for medical experimentation, debate continues today about the authority of the Code remains in force, in modern medical research. The chief prosecutor at the Doctors’ Trial, General Telford Taylor, believed that one of the three U.S. judges, Harold Sebring, was the author of the Code. Two physicians who helped prosecute the Nazi doctors at Nuremberg, Leo Alexander and Andrew Ivy, have each been identified as the Code’s author. A careful reading of the transcript of the Doctors’ Trial, background documents, and the final judgment reveals that authorship was shared and that the famous 10 principles of the Code grew out of the trial itself.<\/p>\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\nMain Article<\/h2>\n
The Following Has Been Authored By America’s Frontline Doctors<\/h4>\n
The EXPERIMENTAL COVID Vaccine…<\/h2>\n
\n
- Has No Independently Published Animal Studies<\/span><\/li>\n
- Shows No Proof That It Stops Transmission of the Virus<\/span><\/li>\n
- Carries The Possibility of Lifelong Infertility<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Excerpts from the 30-page white paper…<\/h2>\n
America\u2019s Frontline Doctors White Paper On Experimental Vaccines For COVID-19<\/span><\/h3>\n
This document represents the preliminary findings of an investigation conducted by the member-physicians of America’s Frontline Doctors. We are recommending caution for patients and policy makers and employers. Additional transparency and more research are needed before we ask Americans to embark on the largest experimental medical program in US history. The unknowns must be addressed through a scientifically rigorous process. Mandates for experimental medical therapies are neither permissible nor advisable. Ordinary Americans should not be compelled to sign up for a “vaccine passport” or similar mandate just to travel on an airplane or see a concert with friends. The potential for third-party abuse of private health information and real medical risk to individuals remains much too high. Concentrations of private power pose a threat to privacy and other civil liberties and policy makers must proceed with caution.<\/p>\n
Dr. Wodarg <\/span><\/a><\/span>and Dr. Yeadon<\/a><\/span><\/span> Demand That The Studies Should Not Be Continued…<\/h2>\n
Many scientists already agree the risk is much too high to proceed with these experimental vaccines. On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech\/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42). Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon demand that the studies \u2013 for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers \u2013 should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned 27 scientists against the vaccine and the study design.<\/p>\n
The Department of Defence of the Federal Government Has Contracted With Google and Oracle to Track Vaccinated Persons…<\/h2>\n
The Department of Defence of the federal government has contracted with Google and Oracle to track vaccinated persons. In the document entitled \u201cFrom the Factory to the Frontlines,\u201d the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Defence (DOD) stated that, because ‘Warp Speed’ vaccine candidates use new unlicensed vaccine production methods that \u201chave limited previous data on safety in humans . . . the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance and Phase 4 (post-licensure) clinical trials.\u201d The vaccination effort itself (OWS) is being managed by the military with the DHS and NSA as opposed to what is usually done, which is civilian health agencies.<\/p>\n
There is Evidence to Support That the Experimental Vaccine Could Cause Permanent Auto-Immune Rejection of the Placenta…<\/h2>\n
Frontline physicians have a very healthy respect for what is unknown. With these new experimental vaccines more is unknown than known, so this section is by definition, incomplete. But we already have suggestions of where serious problems will arise, based upon early data and mechanism of action. There is evidence to support that the vaccine could cause permanent auto-immune rejection of the placenta. Placental inflammation resulting in stillbirths mid-pregnancy (second trimester) is seen with COVID-19 and with other similar coronaviruses. The way the experimental vaccines work, it is concerning that that deleterious effect on the placenta, which in the wild only lasts as long as the acute illness, would instead be lifelong.<\/p>\n
This is becoming a very real danger.<\/h1>\n
People should never be pressured to comply with taking an experimental vaccine. This is becoming a very real danger. The coercion can be implemented by government legislation or through policy directives by large private and public corporations, including airlines, employers, schools, and other institutions. This type of assault on your medical privacy is invasive, aggressive, and unethical.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/biggeesblog.cymru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/Mike_Yeadon_info_video.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n