Nuremberg Code: Excellent Observations on This Important Human Rights Document That the Antihuman Globalists Want to Destroy

That name gets tossed around frequently lately. But what is it and what significance does it have for us in 2021?

The Allies, at the end of WWII, were so appalled by what they saw in the death camps, that they held a trial in Nuremberg, Germany. Partly to try the Nazi war criminals, but also as a warning to anyone in the future who might attempt this Joseph Mengele style of experiments. Afterward, they wrote a code of conduct for the future.

Click to access BMJ_No_7070_Volume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf

Some say it was just a show trial. Others say the Holocaust never happened. I don’t buy that story as all five of my uncles fought in various campaigns. One served with General George Patton in all five of his campaigns. He was with him when they entered one of the death camps. He was not given to making stories up or exaggerating them.

After the trial, people were determined to come up with a code of conduct, especially for scientists and doctors. So, in 1947, Harold Sebring, Leo Alexander, and Andrew Ivy wrote out a code to be followed covering experimentation on humans.

The first item covered was the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects. The central point of the Nuremberg Code states: “The voluntary consent of the subject is absolutely essential.” The right to refuse is at the foundation of the Nuremberg Code.

In 1964, it was ratified by the Declaration of Helsinki. It was then codified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. These principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations that require the informed consent of human subjects for all medical research.

According to the FDA regulations, it is unlawful to conduct medical research even in the case of an emergency unless steps are taken to secure the informed consent of all participants. Further, no other person, be it medical or scientific personnel or any authority figure may substitute for an individual’s informed consent.

Gee, do you think the Tuskeegee Airmen were informed about the syphilis experiment that was conducted on them? I’m betting not! And, exactly what informed consent are they referring to? The drug insert that is in with the vial is a blank sheet of paper?

In Doe vs. Rumsfeld 297 F.Supp. 2nd 119 (2003) a federal court held that the United States military could not mandate Emergency Use of vaccines for soldiers. “The United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs.”

The last time I looked, the AMA’s own code of ethics stated that people have the right to refuse any medical procedure or drug. On top of all of that, marketing mRNA therapy as a vaccine violates Federal Law. Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the standard medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine, referring to them as such, is a deceptive practice that violates 15 U.S. Code Section 10, the law that governs advertising of medical practice.

It strikes me that none of the people who claim the Nuremberg Code doesn’t apply to vaccinations, mandates, or punitive consequences for refusing the vax have even bothered to read the Code. Or they would know better. Certainly not the appointed head of the EU. And, are we going to let a libtard judge and lawyer set the standards for ethics, morality, or legal concepts in this country?

Since all three of these standards are listed in the Code, all three should have to be satisfied before moving on with their agenda. Instead, these people want to do away with the code like a picnicker would dispatch a pesky fly. I don’t think the American people, once informed, will tolerate that.

But, would TPTB really try to remove it? And how does one go about doing that? We definitely need to keep a close eye on these people. Of course, these are the same people who are trampling all over the human rights of people around the world. I guess killing an annoying Code of Conduct would be nothing.

To anyone who thinks that we in the Freedom Movement are just being unnecessarily paranoid, ask yourself why any head of state or agency, any doctor or scientist would want to do away with a guideline instituted to protect people. And, I think you will have your answer.

This informal comment posted at Rumor Mill News is shared here in the spirit of fair use.