Phil Duffy of bearingasset.com, a well-published scholar of our Constitution, recently contacted me through a common friend of freedom and free economics, Patrick Barron. Phil wanted some medical commentary on the relationship, if any, of the tenets of the Nuremberg Code to the ongoing Covid controversies. Many of a certain age vaguely remember the Nuremberg Code, as did I, but once Phil explained its background and current applicability I was profoundly distressed at having overlooked so critical an historic precedent of international law. As a clinician with forty years experience in medical practice with four board certifications I felt capable of evaluating medical aspects of the Covid crisis under Phil’s explanations of the Code’s universal meanings. Although retired from practice just before the start of the Pandemic, I did participate in the experiment as a subject, an early receiver of the artificial mRNA “vaccine”. My reward for compliance was a dangerous heart rhythm disorder that requires ongoing treatment. That was the spark for my continued study of actual facts underlying and denying the pronouncements of our worldwide public health authorities, governments, and media. Phil Duffy’s full article, which will include some aspects of my commentary seen below, awaits publication and when available I will feature it here prominently as well. Although the ten items of the Nuremberg Code are listed individually below, I encourage readers to look up the full code for themselves.
Nuremberg Code Commentary
Item #1
This is how Item 1 of the Nuremberg Code reads:
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 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.
John Allison, JD has written extensively on informed consent and is quoted in Chapter 16 “Covid-19 Vaccines and Informed Consent” of Robert Malone’s book “Lies My Government Told Me”.
He notes that a requirement for informed consent is that the person or their legally recognized agent be informed about the risks and benefits of, and alternatives to, the proposed treatment.
The FDA and CDC established Emergency Use Authorization for the artificial messenger RNA (mRNA) products based on what they knew was incomplete safety and efficacy testing and withheld this information from the public and the scientific community at large until forced to reveal Pfizer and Moderna’s “proprietary data”. Meanwhile FDA and CDC conducted, along with fellow travelers in Mainstream Media and other government agencies as well as “influencers” at large and the World Health Organization (WHO), a campaign of disinformation and censorship as medical scientists around the world began to examine:
1)actual natural history of Covid in various age groups and medical conditions
2)adverse events that rapidly began to arise due to the artificial mRNA vaccine and the spike protein it caused the body to produce, and the “lipid nanoparticle envelope” (LNP) containing the artificial mRNA
3) the actual degree of protection from infection, serious illness, and death in various groups of persons
4) the actual degree of reduced transmission of the virus to others, vaccinated or not
5) the duration of any such protection against infection or transmission
6) a comparison of actual protection from the artificial mRNA to the more robust natural protection from actual viral infection
7) the effects of this artificial “immunization” on changes of the virus and follow-up infections with new resistant versions of the Covid virus.
The incomplete safety testing included the total absence of any knowledge or study of how and where the artificial mRNA and its lipid nanoparticle envelopes went in the body and how long they lasted in the body.
The absence of all this information on safety and effectiveness was withheld from all, and the error in logic of Appeal to Authority (NIH, FDA, and CDC) was used to deny any need to provide such information to the public or to medical practitioners. As the pandemic progressed information about the product’s failure to prevent infections, serious illness, death, or transmission was clearly seen (no vaccine is 100% effective in all these factors). Various levels of government, along with the NIH, CDC, FDA, and Mainstream Media and social media influencers, continued to insist that the “vaccine” was “completely effective and completely safe”. Deliberate spreading of false or misleading information continued as all scientific dissent was cancelled.
The main alternative to the proposed treatment, NOT getting the artificial mRNA “vaccine”, was forbidden. Even those previously infected or found to be at virtually no risk of serious illness, hospitalization, or death (children; young and healthy adults), were required to be vaccinated on pain of social, economic, and governmental penalties. For many categories of essentially “safe” persons, the treatment was mandated by law or administrative or corporate fiat. Voluntary informed consent was denied.
Alternatives for treatment were purposefully ignored and censored. Treatments with known high risk of damage or death were not only recommended by these same authorities but virtually required. Remdesivir, an antiviral with no known prior uses fitting FDA criteria for safety and effectiveness, was effectively mandated in hospitals despite the high death rate and episodes of kidney failure known to be associated with its use. Artificial machine ventilation, soon found to be associated with an excessive rate of death for hospital patients with Covid-associated pneumonia, was essentially mandated for continued use by a reverse “greenmail”—hospitals got paid much more than their usual fees for any patient who had a positive Covid test, whether or not that was responsible for their hospitalization and illness, and even more if they were placed on an artificial ventilator.
Meanwhile, many other physicians, medical scientists, and academics worldwide began to publish findings about the association between use of the old drugs Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine in usual doses as used for other diseases safely and effectively for millions over decades. The response by the NIH/CDC/FDA was to conduct studies using known toxic doses of Hydroxychloroquine late in the course of disease in severely ill hospitalized patients and then conclude that it was of no positive benefit and had caused toxicity. Similar high dose/late course studies were done with Ivermectin as it was publicly dismissed by the FDA as “horse dewormer”. Despite the long-established legal and medically ethical doctrine of “off label” use of drugs proven relatively safe for their primary treatment conditions, physicians were threatened and disciplined all over the United States if they dared to use treatments developed internationally using Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, or other inexpensive medications found to be helpful. Even speaking about the use of these medications for Covid was considered a violation of a new absolute standard of care, the “scientific consensus” arbitrarily enforced by our public health authorities.
Further parts of Item #1 in the Code:
…before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him/her 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/her participation in the experiment.
The nature and purpose of the Covid pandemic experiment was implied; to stop the spread of the disease, reduce serious illness, hospitalization, and death, and achieve “herd immunity” (a high enough percentage of the population immunized so that further spread or continued existence of the virus would be prevented. The additional intent was eliminating this artificially produced virus as a future threat as has been done with smallpox and polio. The duration of the experiment was never revealed or discussed, and now seems endless, with continuing boosters for a now endemic (always present) virus. The violation of every prior “pandemic wargame” that led to WHO’s policy of no universal lockdowns was not revealed and quickly denied. The avowed goal of the experiment, full worldwide vaccination with an untested product never before used in humans, kept shifting from flattening the curve to saving everyone else as the definition of “herd immunity” shifted ever upward under Dr. Fauci’s version of “the Science”. True scientific methods specifically disallow changing the protocols of an experiment during the experiment.
The Final part of Item #1 in the Code:
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.
Our medical community, answering the siren call of governmental public health authorities, immediately and persistently violated this paragraph. Multiple individuals at the NIH, CDC, and FDA started and directed the requirement for total population vaccination with a completely experimental artificial mRNA vaccine. This is, in fact, a genetic therapy, and those organizations violated their own guidelines regarding such therapies. Those requirements rapidly became mandates with punishments for physicians or other health entities that did not comply and for subpopulations and individuals who refused to participate in the experiment. Most physicians, whether under duress or not, violated their professional duty and responsibility to obtain true informed consent from each individual they vaccinated, delegating the authority and use of their medical license to public health authorities.
THUS, VIRTUALLY ALL ASPECTS OF NUREMBERG CODE #1 WERE VIOLATED.
Item #2
Item 2 of the Nuremberg Code reads:
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.
Quoting our federal health authorities, the artificial mRNA “vaccine” was Emergency Use Authorization. It was not, nor has it yet been approved for use under FDA regulations. This confirms its use as “an experiment”, falling under the full meaning of the Nuremberg Code.
The experiment was intended to yield fruitful results for the good of society, but as noted above, those fruits kept shifting in type and ripening or spoiling. Given the multiple and changing endpoints of this unprecedented vast experiment wherein no attempt at designing the “study” to learn if it was providing any societal good rather than largely destroying the economy and condemning large proportions of our youth to irrecoverable social and educational deficits, we cannot know if the randomly defined and changing benefits were procurable by any other methods or means of study. We do know now that the principles of The Great Barrington Declaration, largely followed in Sweden and Florida, did result in a greater good for those societies measured in age-adjusted lives lost, educational and social benefits, and preservation of economic welfare. Other methods of Covid-19 treatment were being pursued by physicians, including treatment with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and other medications. These were dismissed as ineffective despite good evidence of safety and effectiveness. That evidence was censored, leaving the public with the impression that only two choices were available –
(1) receive the vaccine shots or
(2) accept the deadly consequences of being unprotected against Covid-19 and be responsible for the deaths of others by harboring and transmitting the virus.
The minimal rate of serious illness, hospitalization, and death except in very small well-defined populations (those over 70 and/or with multiple chronic health problems) was rapidly apparent in the early phases of the pandemic, showing the experimental use of population-wide immunization unnecessary. These findings were ignored and denied.
HERE AGAIN ALL ASPECTS OF ITEM #2 WERE VIOLATED.
Item #3
From the Nuremberg Code:
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 artificial mRNA “vaccines” were tested in rodents with the endpoint being their production of “neutralizing antibodies” against the Covid 19 virus. These studies did not evaluate distribution in the body of the artificial mRNA or lipid nanoparticle envelopes, or the “spike protein” that the artificial mRNA instructed the body to make, the duration those substances persisted in the rodents, or any long-term side effects (rodents do not live that long). These same aspects were ignored in early human studies. Under the Operation Warp Speed program human studies ended earlier than designed, again violating true scientific method. The control group of unvaccinated persons were offered and for the most part given the vaccine, ending their usefulness as a control group over any longer period of observation—another gross violation of scientific protocol. No longer term follow-up for possible adverse effects was done. When the raw data was finally revealed after FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuits, that data revealed the vaccinated study group fared worse than the unvaccinated study group in various respects. The chosen endpoint again was primarily the level of “neutralizing antibodies” raised using the artificial mRNA. No studies have been done to date to try to correlate the level of neutralizing antibodies with
a) protection from infection
b) protection from serious illness or hospitalization
c) protection from death
d) preventing transmission of infection to others.
No studies were done regarding the safety of the lipid nanoparticle envelopes that contain and transport artificial mRNA in animals or humans. These lipid nanoparticles contain Polyethylene glycol, and several other chemicals labelled by their manufacturers as “not for human use”. The artificial mRNA in the “vaccine” has large amounts of pseudouridine, further modified and substituted for what would be uridine in natural mRNA structure, which suppresses the body’s immune reaction to the artificial mRNA and delays the artificial mRNA breakdown by the body. No such artificial mRNA constructed with pseudouridine has been tested for safety in humans or animals.
The natural history of the disease, and its fatality ratio, were obscured by computer models from Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College of London laboratory, infamous for its prior multiple failures to provide accurate information or predictions. His predictions were of a fatality rate of 3.4% of cases; the observed rate overall was less than 0.5%, similar to or less than influenza. His estimates predicting mass death on a worldwide scale failed to materialize even in areas that did essentially no vaccination, lockdowns, or masking (Africa, for example). Yet our public became convinced by government propaganda that the death rate remained much higher, even for younger people, long after observation showed Covid 19’s more benign nature. Given substantial evidence suggesting that the virus was manufactured under NIH grants and accidentally released by the Wuhan Virology Institute, no natural history of the infection in animals or humans was or is known. Thus, the results of the experimental use of the mRNA vaccine could not be anticipated.
THE EXPERIMENT COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED UNDER THIS RULE OF THE NUREMBERG CODE.
Item #4
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
The mandated use of the vaccine, without proof of which one could be dismissed from employment or service in the military, or prevented from travelling, seeing loved ones, or going to school, caused irreparable physical and mental suffering and injury that is still being tallied. Those are aside from the many adverse effects observed, such as myocarditis/pericarditis (inflammation of the heart or its membrane), heart rhythm disorders (occasionally fatal), blood-clotting disorders, autoimmune diseases (the body attacking itself), nervous system disorders including ascending paralysis (Guillain-Barre Syndrome), and multiple abnormalities in female reproductive processes such as irregular periods, infertility, and miscarriages. The voluntary online site for reporting these, VAERS, has received many times the reports of serious adverse events after this vaccine compared with any other vaccine or medication. The FDA and CDC admit VAERS markedly underreports such problems. Finally, as reported by actuaries of several insurance companies in the U.S.A. and by the national statistical agency of the U.K. government, very large increases in excess deaths in the non-elderly have begun occurring since the widespread use of the experimental vaccine was mandated. These are not just persons who did not receive needed care during the lockdowns, or “late” victims of Covid 19. They are mostly younger individuals not known for health problems. The cause of this phenomenon is undetermined; its coincidence with use of the vaccine is noteworthy.
ITEM #4 OF THE NUREMBERG CODE IS CLEARLY VIOLATED.
Item #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.
Certainly, neither the researchers or the public health officials behind the Covid 19 mRNA “vaccines” believed that death or disabling injury would occur, although it has. Rather they had no reason NOT to believe that such might occur. No short term or long-term safety studies were done in animals or humans, despite the unprecedented technology being used. As noted above, almost all physicians became experimental participants, and subjects, disregarding their individual and several duties and responsibilities.
OUR PUBLIC HEALTH AND GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES CHOSE TO IGNORE THIS PART OF THE NUREMBERG CODE, THUS FAILED TO MEET ITS CRITERIA.
Item #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.
AGAIN, NO REAL ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO ASCERTAIN THE RISKS TAKEN; THE HUMANITARIAN IMPORTANCE WAS JUDGED BASED ON COMPUTER MODELS OF PUBLIC HEALTH HYSTERIA, VIOLATING SEVERAL PRE-EXISTING POLICIES OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, AS WELL AS THIS ITEM OF THE NUREMBERG CODE.
Item #7.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even the remote possibilities of injury disability or death.
No level of government has made any provisions before, during, or after this experiment in worldwide “herd immunity” with an untested genetic treatment. Our federal government has completely denied the opportunity and ability of the experimental subjects for redress of injury disability or death by protecting the drug companies against any civil or criminal liability for effects of the artificial mRNA vaccines. No significant effort has been made by the CDC, FDA, or NIH to establish a more robust system of reporting of adverse events or vaccination failures or to follow up those few that are reported by the current inadequate voluntary system. The one government program that may compensate victims of the vaccines is tiny, inefficient, slow, and has approved only a miniscule number of claims for a miniscule sum.
WITH NO PROTECTIONS PROVIDED AGAINST INJURY, DISABILITY, OR DEATH, AND NO REALISTIC METHODS OF REDRESS FOR SAME, THE VIOLATION OF THIS NUREMBERG CODE ITEM BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS OBVIOUS.
Item #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.
This rule specifies a highly focused team of health professionals, first limiting its work to a small statistically significant sample of the population. Only after clear success in the initial experimentation is that circle of scientifically qualified persons and the number of experimental subjects extended. To the contrary, the Covid 19 vaccine program required from the beginning mass production and distribution of a product its promoters hoped, without proof, would achieve protection of the world’s population. Physicians and other health professionals are not scientifically qualified persons except when specifically trained for well-defined clinical studies. No attempt at studying the effectiveness of the vaccines or their safety upon release was ever intended, designed, or considered.
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND ITS MEMBER NATIONS ALL VIOLATED THIS ITEM OF THE CODE.
Item #9
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he/she has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him/her to be impossible.
GIVEN THE LEGAL AND SOCIAL COERCION PLACED ON ALL OUR POPULATION, ALL NONCONSENTING UNINFORMED MEMBERS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS GROUP, THE VIOLATION OF THIS ITEM OF THE NUREMBERG CODE IS CLEAR.
Item #10
During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he/she has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required by him/her that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
This rule lacks a critical scientific precaution. Experimental studies are frequently ended early if such harms are seen, or “red flags” of unexpected adverse events are detected by pre-designed vigilance, or if the experiment fails to achieve the pre-designed results. Here we see multiple issues. No scientist was in charge, unless we accept the bureaucrat Dr. Anthony Fauci’s self-nomination as such, remembering that “he is the Science”. The dictator of the experiment ultimately was our non-scientific chief executive, the President. Trump started the process and the experiment, but Biden continued it enthusiastically with persistent wild claims of effectiveness and safety even after these were seen to be false. President Biden finally ended the Pandemic Emergency, dropping the experiment’s protocols of forced lockdowns, masking, social distancing, and use of an untested genetic treatment. He did not base the end of this undesigned, unstudied experiment upon any scientific end points or admissions of failures or harms. There is no “Institutional Review Board” for this arbitrary and random experiment. No concrete data has been followed or obtained by the CDC, FDA, or NIH to indicate any statistically significant outcome, good or bad. The non-scientific “experimenter” may simply have recognized that the predictable natural history of any viral pandemic had once again shown that all such viral onslaughts become more infectious and less damaging over time (since they cannot persist by killing off their hosts). They fade away into always present threats that recur seasonally like influenza, and in the absence of illegal and unethical “gain of function” research are unlikely to become persistent causes of death and disability. Yet public health advisors, now masters, continue to insist on repeated booster vaccinations which are almost immediately obsolete due to further mutations of Covid 19. Scientific judgement by our professional bodies that assumed this responsibility can no longer be trusted. Their professional judgement has not been the driving force of this illegal, unethical, and unjust experiment. Instead, it is the delusion of the madness of the crowds with Mattias Desmet’s “mass formation” by master propagandists desperate to maintain their version of Plato’s Noble Lie. They do so despite good emerging evidence strongly suggesting that repeated vaccination with artificial mRNA products results in greater likelihood of subsequent infection with the virus and more general likelihood of immune suppression, autoimmune disease, and some types of cancers. They do so despite the ongoing increasing toll of persistent serious adverse events associated with this genetic therapy.
AGAIN, VIOLATION OF THIS ITEM OF THE NUREMBERG CODE IS ASTONISHINGLY CLEAR.
Conclusions
This discussion affirms that our government and others knowingly and deliberately violated all ten items of the Nuremberg Code, and having done so are liable to accusation of crimes against humanity. Allegations are not charges, and there is no venue to judge these crimes other than widening expression of public opinion, the letter boxes of Mainstream Media and your elected representatives, and the ballot box. Our administrative and governmental scientific communities are largely beyond our reach, and perhaps even that of Congress. Our only adequate response may be personal, based in the intents of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Our resistance on behalf of personal freedom must be based in personal action. The more “authorities” insist on the absolute correctness of their point of view, the more skeptical you become. Look for other credible sources of factual information (not opinion, assessment, or reaction) beyond Mainstream Media and those governmental authorities. Ask your health care provider key questions based on the Nuremberg Code when any “new” treatment is recommended, and insist on full direct answers:
What is the known natural history of my condition/problem?
What are the specific benefits to me from this treatment, at what cost?
Has this treatment been fully studied for effectiveness and safety in animals and humans?
What are the alternative treatments available or under consideration, with their costs, side effects, and adverse events?
What might happen, at what probability, if I choose NOT to accept this or any other treatment?
What might happen if I decide at some point to stop this treatment?
ULTIMATELY, BE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE. DO NOT SIMPLY COMPLY
It's a good article. The pandemic, regardless of the suspicious origins, was an opportunity to do well-designed scientific study. The number of patients and amount of money spent during the course of this disaster would appeal to any honest and properly motivated scientist. At the beginning of the pandemic, I saw a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for modern science to show up, and using the enormous financial resources and public attention, at least properly document the COVID phenomenon. This could have been analyzed in the future. Instead all the scientific date were wasted,