Nuremberg Code, H1N1 Vaccines & Their Nazi History
By A Concerned American
October 10, 2009
Nuremberg Code, H1N1 Vaccines & Their Nazi History (Oct. 10, 2009)
We have the very great irony now that the very companies whose forced medical horrors during the Nazi regime led to the creation of the Nuremberg Code have, through their power at the WHO, set in motion the largest forced medical experiment in human history - even militarized. They have accomplished a complete end run around the very Code meant to stop any repeat of their deadly forced medical experiments.
And civil rights around consent have been carefully removed by laws put in place in advance by governments such as Bush and Cheney's and by the WHO which these pharmaceutical companies control.
IG Farben was indicted for war crimes by the Nuremberg Tribunal - for making the gas for the gas chambers, for hideous experiments by Mengele, for buying, experimenting on and killing people with vaccines. IG Farben was broken up into BASF, BAYER (now Baxter International which released deadly avian flu mixed with human flu last year which would have killed millions and then was immediately selected to produce the swine flu vaccines), and HOECHST (formerly Aventis, now Sanofli Pasteur, also making the swine flu vaccines and a company that put Sarkozy into office in France where he had secret plans to remove democracy there using the pandemic as a pretext)
The Rockefellers, along with the pharmaceutical industry, control the WHO. They had a large interest in IG Farben and were involved in eugenics and genocide. This is who is promoting the vaccines. The new means to forced medical experiments seem to be through fear and emergency rather than concentration camps, and the means to eugenics now appears to be disguising the genocidal intent and the contents of vaccines.
The Nuremberg Code is based on two things missing now - informed consent. Instead, we have military on the ground to "assist" and martial law statutes on the books in most states arranged by Bush and Cheney that would make medical experimentation - diagnostic tests, unknown treatments, taking of samples, and exposure to chemical "decontamination," and vaccination - mandatory, via threat of prison, massive fines, and detention camps.
H1N1 has brought us full circle back to forced human medical experiments - and with the very Nazi companies and Rockefellers involved then. One wonders then - what IS in those unknown, untested vaccines being forced on millions?
NUREMBERG CODE AGAINST FORCED VACCINES
In August 1947, the judges delivered their verdict in the "Doctors' Trial" against Karl Brandt and several others. They also delivered their opinion on medical experimentation on human beings. Several of the accused had argued that their experiments differed little from pre-war ones and that there was no law that differentiated between legal and illegal experiments.
In April of the same year, Dr. Leo Alexander had submitted to the Counsel for War Crimes six points defining legitimate medical research. The trial verdict adopted these points and added an extra four. The ten points constituted the "Nuremberg Code". Although the legal force of the document was not established and it was not incorporated directly into either the American or German law, the Nuremberg Code and the related Declaration of Helsinki are the basis for the Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Volume 46, which are the regulations issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services governing federally funded research in the United States. In addition, the Nuremberg code has also been incorporated into the law of individual states such as California, and other countries.
The Nuremberg code includes such principles as informed consent and absence of coercion; properly formulated scientific experimentation; and beneficence towards experiment participants.
The ten points of the Nuremberg Code
The ten points are, (all from United States National Institutes of Health)
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, 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/her 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 reasonable 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.
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.
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.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is a prior reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
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.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
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.
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.
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.
Reprinted from Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.
|All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.|