The Nuremberg Code's relevance - 75 years on

This week marks 75 years since the Nuremberg Code was written in the aftermath of the famous Doctors’ trial conducted in Nuremberg, Germany in 1947.  Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav has praised the Code as “the most authoritative, internationally recognized document in the history of medical ethics.”  

Although the Nuremberg Code is not legally binding, it is based on an earlier ethical guideline that was written and accepted into law in Germany in 1931.  This legally binding code of medical ethics, which was in force for the entire Nazi period, did not prevent the Nazis from violating it in its entirety.  In terms of medical ethics, Nazi Germany was arguably the most tyrannical regime in history.  Before the Nazis murdered a single Jew in a death camp, they had already murdered more than 70,000 souls in a eugenics program called Operation T4.  Gas chambers and cremation ovens were built and used in the Nazi eugenics program before the Final Solution was implemented.

It is also worth noting that countries, including the United States have either incorporated the Nuremberg Code into their body of law or have used it as the basis for their own laws governing human experimentation.  United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 45 Volume 46 that governs federally funded medical research is based on the Nuremberg Code and the related Declaration of Helsinki.

That said, it seems not to matter much whether a code of ethics is legally binding.  Codes of medical ethics have not prevented medical tyranny in the past and do not prevent medical tyranny in the present.  Let us look at the first principle of the 10 principles comprising the Nuremberg Code (The original German code has a similar clause as does the CFR.)

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. 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.

In modern parlance, we would call this informed consent.

The Western world takes pride in the fact that there is compassion in the practice of medicine. Many people, perhaps most people would find it abhorrent to make any sort of comparison between Western medical practice and medicine as practiced in Nazi Germany.  There are no euthanasia programs in the Western world.  Humans are not coerced into participating in medical experiments against their will.

And yet, many have claimed that governments’ COVID-19 policies particularly mandates and other forms of coercion forcing people to receive COVID-19 “vaccines” have violated the Nuremberg Code and related local laws.  After all, no COVID-19 “vaccine” has received full approval and licensure from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the US government’s organization responsible for approving new drugs.  All COVID-19 “vaccines” have received emergency use authorization (EUA) which, by definition, means that the “vaccines” are still experimental.  The FDA website clearly states, “Emergency Use IND (investigational new drug) allows the FDA to authorize use of an experimental drug in an emergency situation . . .”

“Fact checkers” claim to debunk this.  Here is an example: The “claim that the Covid-19 vaccines are experimental is simply not true, and something we have corrected multiple times. The three Covid vaccines currently given temporary authorisation for use in the UK have been shown to be safe and effective in large scale clinical trials.”

Embarrassingly, the second sentence contradicts the first.  “Vaccines” were given temporary authorization because they are still experimental.  If they were not experimental, they would have been fully approved.

Notwithstanding the so-called “fact-checkers”, medical tyranny is alive and well in Western countries. People have been coerced into accepting COVID-19 shots under threat of losing their jobs, not being able to participate in public life, go to restaurants, theaters, museums, sports facilities, etc.  This, even though the “vaccines” are still experimental.  Arguably, even if the “vaccines” were fully approved it would be medical tyranny to force people to accept a medical procedure against their will.  

We’ve been hearing the mantra since their rollouts in December, 2020 that the “vaccines” are “safe and effective”.  This has proven to be false.  They are neither safe nor effective.  The Vaccine Adverse Events System (VAERS) in the United States records more adverse events from COVID-19 “vaccines” than all other vaccines combined since its inception 32 years ago.  New studies show an uptick in cardiovascular events, young adults “dying suddenly”, various cancers and many other unprecedented health events.

Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has walked back some of the claims they’ve been making since the “vaccines’” rollouts.  Primary among the changed guidance is that CDC recommendations for those who never received the shots are now the same as for the fully “vaccinated”.

I want to address two questions:

• What good is an ethical guideline if it does not prevent unethical medical practices?
• What can be done to prevent medical tyranny?

The human capacity for rationalizing any situation to conform with preconceived notions is astounding.   

Few would disagree that it is unethical to coerce people into an experimental medical procedure for which the long-term effects are unknown and whose benefits are at best short-lived.  In the United States, a vaccine information fact sheet given to “vaccine” recipients at least gives the appearance of informed consent if not the substance of it.  In other countries, such as Israel, even this is not done.  In Israel, even the appearance of informed consent is missing.  How is this rationalized?

In the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 the Patriot Act was passed to fight terrorism.  The Act is blatantly unconstitutional.  In the name of fighting terrorism, the Act removes constitutional protections such as habeas corpus and Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure without probable cause.  It was passed in the House by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 357 yeas to 66 nays.  Ninety-eight out of 100 senators voted for the bill in the Senate.  How could the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress pass a clearly unconstitutional law with almost no public pushback?

The common denominator between COVID-19 policies restricting and removing citizens’ rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Patriot Act is fear.  In both cases, people rationalized away the removal of our guaranteed rights for “the greater good”.  Government propaganda largely abetted by the mainstream media and social media giants scared people half to death.

During the Nuremberg trials after WWII, top Nazi Hermann Goering told American psychologist Gustave Gilbert, “. . . the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

There was essentially no public pushback against the Patriot Act because we were attacked by terrorists.  More than 3,000 Americans were murdered in the largest and most heinous act of terrorism ever perpetrated on American soil.  

Fast forward twenty years.  Education Secretary Miguel Cardona solicited a letter last September from the National School Boards Association which compared parents protesting at school board meetings to domestic terrorists.  This was a calculated action.  The government did this so that the Patriot Act would kick in.  Once a citizen is labelled a terrorist or a potential terrorist, the Patriot Act gives the government all sorts of (unconstitutional) powers such as warrantless surveillance that it otherwise does not have.  This is a slippery slope indeed.

Likewise, the government was able to enact COVID-19 policies with precious little pushback because people were scared half out of their wits by government propaganda helped in large part by the media and social media giants like Facebook and Twitter.

So, the situation seems bleak.  What chance do we have of preventing medical tyranny?  The medical establishment in and out of government tells us that they are not violating the Nuremberg Code.  They tell us that lockdowns and forced vaccinations are necessary because we are being attacked.  This is the only way to protect ourselves, they say.

The answer is to stand up and shout out the truth wherever and however we can.  

In Nazi Germany there were doctors who opposed the government’s euthanasia programs but they were silenced.  But where the people stood up and protested, the government stopped the programs (at least in public).  “The details of Operation T4 became known to the public, most famously through the sermons of the Bishop of Münster, Clemens August Graf von Galen, in the summer of 1941. Public outrage resulted in the ceasing of systematic gassings in centralized locations, illustrating the power of the German people and public opinion in opposition to the Nazi regime.”

There are many heroes among the medical and scientific community who have opposed government mandates and the “vaccines”.  On the one hand, mainstream media and the social media giants have censored them.  On the other hand, the internet levels the playing field to an extent.  Our answer to medical tyranny is to stay the course and throw out a truth net as far and as wide as we can.  

In the end the truth will prevail.