Why Did Nuremberg Fail Us?
The mRNA shots are unethical medical experimentation on a scale never before witnessed. Shouldn't the Nuremberg Code prevent this?
Around 1:23 Bret says:
“If Nuremberg is in jeopardy, if we’re going to forget those lessons, then we are in danger of a new tragedy of history… we simply cannot allow anything to be added to the list of great tragedies, and this is our warning sign.”
I would say we are already well past “warning signs” and actively INSIDE one of the great tragedies of history.
The mRNA experiment is a disaster.
In fact, words like “disaster” and “tragedy” are far too passive. This isn’t a landslide or a tsunami.
ATROCITY is more to the point.
The Nuremberg Code spells out ethical practices for research and medical experimentation on humans. We’ve had it for 75 years.
So, shouldn’t Nuremberg have prevented this?
Well, here’s the problem:
“The Code has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association.”
The Nuremberg Principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime, as codified by the UN. But the member states voted against the UN’s enforcement capability, so the Principles were drafted as recommendations.
(I think it’s right that the member nations voted against UN enforcement. More on that in a minute.)
Which means, essentially that the Code, and the Principles, are a set of really swell ideas, and we can all pinky-swear on them and that’s great, but they’re not actually enforceable laws.
There are no criminal consequences in place, anywhere, if anyone defies the Nuremberg Code.
That’s a problem.
Here’s what the Nuremberg Code actually says
From The Nuremberg Code*:
(*Does the fact that this is reprinted on the NIH website make you feel sick? Because it makes me feel sick.)
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, 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. 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.
Well, as you can see, we’ve gone horribly off the rails right as we pulled out of the station. Billions of people received experimental shots without this “absolutely essential” informed consent. The WHO (nice of them) even makes available a template for informed consent. It’s a shame that all the public health officials screaming “Follow the WHO guidelines!” missed this guideline.
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.
Ah-ha. “Unprocurable by other means”. Cue the suppression of treatments with repurposed drugs, including prophylaxis with known, safe antivirals like Ivermectin. The FBI even raided a clinic treating covid patients with Vitamin C. Hydroxychloroquine (an “essential medicine” according to the WHO) was discredited and banned as a treatment in several countries by using lethal doses (a Nuremberg violation in its own right) in several clinical trials. (I can’t embed the video for some reason, but Meryl Nass discusses the lethal doses here.)
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.
Bit of a problem here, too, since the history of coronavirus vaccine attempts on animals has been disastrous for the animals, and has shown signs of disease enhancement.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
How’s this for a catalog of “unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury”?
Or, if you can stand it, the devastating testimony of the victims themselves. (I challenge you to get to the end of that video with dry eyes.)
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.
An a priori (before-the-fact) reason to believe death and disabling injury will occur? How about Pfizer’s own trial data which show a 300% increase in adverse events?
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.
No intervention was necessary whatsoever for most of the public who were never at high risk from this disease. We’re up to 160 papers now showing the superiority of exposure and recovery (aka “natural immunity”) to vaccinated immunity. Any population-wide intervention is much more dangerous than the disease itself. Here’s a study conducted by researchers from the University of Washington, University of Oxford, University of Toronto, Harvard Medical School, UCSF, and Johns Hopkins that shows that the shots are 98 times worse than the virus for young people, for example.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
Proper preparations? Oh, yes, not to worry: the CDC recommends observing the recipient for fifteen minutes. 🙄
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.
“Only conducted by scientifically qualified persons”. Qualified by whom? Overseen by whom? What if those agencies are captured? What if someone disagrees with the research practices? What if someone discovers that proper methodology is being flouted and gamed? What if whistleblowers tell us something is going horribly wrong?
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.
“At liberty to bring the experiment to an end”. Well, that pretty much precludes mandates, doesn’t it?
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.
“The scientist in charge” exercising “good faith” is a problem, since that scientist is likely FUNDED by people who have an interest in keeping the experiment going.
Is anyone keeping score?
By my count, that’s 0 for 10 on the Nuremberg Code.
Congratulations, your medical ethics score is 0%
Good Job, Science™.
Of course, as the Marine Corps attorney in Brett’s video outlines, this is not the first time Nuremberg has failed to protect the innocent.
A Short History of Unethical Human Experimentation since Nuremberg
Here’s the incidents mentioned in the video:
Porton Down (as reported by the BBC): "Porton Down was set up in 1916. It was a center designed to test chemical and biological weapons. Nerve gases such as Sarin and CS gas were tested on volunteer servicemen. Servicemen were offered around £2 and three days leave as an incentive to take part in tests. Very few servicemen knew what they were volunteering for and some were even told it was research into the cure for the common cold. In 1953 it is alleged that serviceman Ronald Maddison died after taking part in a Sarin gas experiment. In 1962, one of Porton Down’s own scientists, Geoffrey Bacon died of the plague. Since the end of WWII, 20,000 people have taken part in experiments at Porton Down."
Cold War experiments: “Literally thousands of human radiation experiments were conducted during the Cold War using, in general, subjects who were poor, sick, and powerless. Radiation experiments on soldiers, including repeated insertion of radium rods into their nostrils and the administration of irradiated foods to conscientious objectors, began in the 1940s… and continued until 1962.” (Source)
MKUltra program: The CIA conducted hundreds of LSD/mind-control/interrogation experiments on unwitting subjects over the course of two decades, from about 1953 to 1973. The program was only shut down when the CIA director feared the general public might find out, which they subsequently did in 1976, when investigative journalist John Marks obtained crucial documents through an FOIA request.
Committee of Veteran’s Affairs Report 103-97: (1997) “For at least fifty years, DOD has intentionally exposed military personnel to potentially dangerous substances, often in secret.”
And this is only the surface.
Here’s some more.
The Tuskegee Study: “conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the United States Public Health Service (PHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on a group of nearly 400 African Americans with syphilis. The purpose of the study was to observe the effects of the disease when untreated, though by the end of the study medical advancements meant it was entirely treatable. The men were not informed of the nature of the experiment, and more than 100 died as a result.”
Operation Sea-Spray: “In 1950, to conduct a simulation of a biological warfare attack, the U.S. Navy sprayed large quantities of the bacteria Serratia marcescens over the city of San Francisco during a project called Operation Sea-Spray. Numerous citizens contracted pneumonia-like illnesses, and at least one person died as a result….Serratia tests were continued until at least 1969.”
Willowbrook State School: “From the 1950s to 1972, mentally disabled children at the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York, were intentionally infected with viral hepatitis, for research whose purpose was to help discover a vaccine. From 1963 to 1966... parents of mentally disabled children [were promised] that their children would be enrolled into Willowbrook in exchange for signing a consent form for... "vaccinations". In reality, the procedures involved deliberately infecting children with viral hepatitis by feeding them an extract made from the feces of patients infected with the disease."
Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense: “From 1963 to 1969… the U.S. Army performed tests which involved spraying several U.S. ships with various biological and chemical warfare agents, while thousands of U.S. military personnel were aboard the ships. The personnel were not notified of the tests, and were not given any protective clothing.”
Government admits unauthorized sterilization of native women (1976): “A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office finds that 4 of the 12 Indian Health Service regions sterilized 3,406 American Indian women without their permission between 1973 and 1976. The GAO finds that 36 women under age 21 were sterilized during this period.”
CDC Inoculated Black and Latino Babies (1990): “A covert clinical trial by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Kaiser Permanente inoculated Black and Latino babies with an experimental measles vaccine without informing parents the vaccine was experimental. More than 1500 six-month old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles were given the deadly “experimental” measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States; a vaccine that had been tested in African and Mexican babies resulting in high death rates. The parents were never informed and they never gave their consent."
AZT trials: “In 1994 United States drug companies began conducting trials of the drug AZT on HIV-positive African subjects with the goal of developing treatments to reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS during childbirth. With funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the program tested over 17,000 Zimbabwean women for the efficacy of AZT in preventing transmission of HIV/AIDS during childbirth. Half of the women were given a placebo rather than the drug, and the subjects were not informed of the potential dangers of the treatment.”
I could go on and on. There are hundreds and hundreds more.
There are radiation experiments, biological and chemical weapon experiments, forced sterilizations, surgical experiments, torture and interrogation experiments, and of course, pharmaceutical experiments.
These are typically performed on children, military personnel, the sick, prisoners, or mentally disabled people (i.e., those who have no knowledge of what is being done to them, or those who can’t defend themselves.)
And these are just the ones we know about.
It’s enough to make your hair stand on end.
This is a deep, dark, horrifying rabbit hole.
The US military and CIA and Big Pharma are obviously major culprits. But there are examples from other countries, too (like Japan, Canada, Guatemala, Sweden, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union)
The Nuremberg Code has not stopped any of it.
There have been other attempts to codify medical ethics, like the Rome Treaty which defines “torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments” as war crimes.
But clearly this has done little if anything to stop the shocking, shameful history of human experimentation.
And, here we are, standing in the midst of a global atrocity, caused by another massive human rights violation.
The scale of this is staggering.
Shortcomings of the Nuremberg Code
What is to prevent a bunch of billionaires gathering once a year to discuss horrifying and profitable ways of overriding every aspect of the Nuremberg Code?
Nothing.
Unless we change that.
I’m not a legal expert, but I think I do understand natural rights.
Rights are not privileges bestowed upon you by a king or government or any political entity. They are yours, by virtue of being alive.
They are also not brought into being by constitutions and bills of rights. These are merely codifications of rights you already possess.
The need to codify rights would not exist if there were no evils.
If there were no such thing as censorship, for example, there would be no need to codify the right to freedom of speech. The evil exists, therefore it’s necessary to write down and legally enforce a proscription against that evil.
We’ve now entered into a new scale of evil—unethical experimentation for profit on a global scale. There are powerful forces who don’t give a flying flip about the Nuremberg Code or any such strictures on power. They will act unchecked, with impunity.
Epidemiology, public health, medicine, and indeed science itself are politicized and monetized.
Which means they are weaponized against you and me.
And when someone comes at you with a weapon, you have two choices: run or defend yourself.
Unless, as a species, we draw a line now, these madmen will go on experimenting with us and our children and their children, for gain, for power, forever.
Clearly, there needs to be a codified, enforceable bill of rights that protects us from medical experimentation.
The Nuremberg Code is a nice start, but if it allows for the atrocity we are now witnessing with experimental mRNA shots, it falls sadly short.
Things we need to improve in the Nuremberg Code:
As I said, the existence of evil is what gives rise to the need to defend ourselves with things like bills of rights.
But when you become aware of evil that outstrips (or simply ignores) your bill of rights, you have to make some amendments.
I believe we’ve learned some things about the evildoers, specifically in the last few years, that clearly justify some amendments.
1. Draft it into law on the national level, and make it a prosecutable offense for violating it.
Emphasis on national level.
I said earlier it was right that the member states voted against UN enforcement. Two reasons:
One, we are in a crisis of liberty precisely because international organizations, including the UN, have taken it upon themselves to be the world’s dictators. Any time nations can retain decentralized sovereignty over their own law is a good thing, I believe, for the cause of liberty. If the centralized authority is dead wrong—a phenomenon we’re all amply familiar with by now—it allows you to follow a different path.
Two, with no centralized authority (a good thing), “international law” is inherently fuzzy and largely about who possesses power. It is not clear to me how crimes are prosecuted at the international level, other than by winning wars and imposing punitive action on the losing side.
(The International Criminal Court has only indicted 50 people since it’s inception, and none of them have been involved in any of the incidents we pointed out earlier. Even though, technically, those crimes should fall under the definition of “war crimes” that the ICC is based on.)
As the defendants at the Nuremberg trials pointed out, they were hardly the only ones engaged in unethical experimentation. They just happened to be on the losing side of a war, so they got punished.
But does that mean medical experimentation is only wrong if you’re not in power?
That sounds a lot like “might makes right” to me.
In that case, being in power means you get to commit as much international crime as you want.
Which, of course, is exactly what is happening.
Related…
2. There has to be rules prohibiting the import of Code-violating research and products from other countries.
As we’ve seen in the past, if a nation implements some rules, the death merchants just take their evildoing somewhere else.
Pharma companies have notoriously performed their experiments in low and middle income countries, where they are more likely to find people in need of medical care, who will line up to be experimented on without realizing they are being experimented on.
Under any code that makes sense, you can’t violate someone’s human rights in Country B and then come selling the results in Country A.
3. Medical organizations, hospitals, pharmacies operating within the legal jurisdiction where this is law must adopt it as their official ethics policy.
Not “guidelines”. Not “recommendations”. Policy. BY-LAWS. As in, if you violate the rights of a patient in this matter, you are subject to punitive action, suspension, fines, job loss, loss of license or accreditation, etc.
Of course every medical organization has a statement of ethics of some kind. But that no one has officially adopted the Nuremberg Code as their official policy on medical experimentation is a black mark on those organizations. (No, NIH, simply posting on your website doesn’t count, and given the violations of the Code, is almost an egregious slap in the face.)
But of course they haven’t adopted it, since that would put the whole damn cartel and all of its financial interests into an impossible bind, called ethics.
4. It must contain rules about separation of powers between state and pharmaceutical/private/financial interests.
This is critical.
As I indicated above, there are several conflict-of-interest ambiguities within the Code itself. If the supposed “overseers” of the industry are part of the industry itself, there is no oversight, and nothing to stop anyone from violating the Code as they see fit.
We have to have separation of state and medicine, or it’s all for naught.
5. It must specifically protect freedom of speech for doctors, researchers, and medical professionals.
These professionals must have to be ability to criticize those whom they believe to be in violation of the Code, and there must be protection for whistleblowers.
6. Emergency Use cannot supersede or inviolate these rights.
“But it’ll take too long to do proper clinical trials!”
Too bad, pharma.
In a true public health emergency (and I’m starting to be skeptical about the entire concept) it is even more important that rights such as proper informed consent are upheld and followed. This is precisely when bad actors could take advantage of fear and political pressure to violate basic human rights.
Which, again, is exactly what is happening.
7. End liability shields.
Liability shields were only ever intended to benefit manufacturers. The victims are thrown to the curb. It is monstrous.
In a universe that makes sense, if your experiment causes pain and suffering, you pay for it.
This restores the incentive to do proper clinical trials and to not rush toxic snake oil to the market. It creates a financial disincentive to lie, commit fraud, and cause harm.
And the payment has to be dear, not just a drop in the bucket.
This alone would bring the manufacturers to heel, once-and-for-all. With no liability shield, probably, most of them would exit the market altogether.
And I for one, would not shed a tear.
Well, that’s my initial crack at it.
Like I said, I’m obviously not a legal expert, and how to actually implement these concepts into a functioning, legally-binding bill of patient rights is a task for people a lot smarter than me.
But these broad strokes are necessary if we’re ever going to course-correct and prevent an atrocity like this from ever happening again.
Every now and then humans have to stop what they’re doing and write down what they will no longer accept from the powerful and make it law.
This friends, is one of those times.
This post had a lot of research. Buy James a coffee. He’s sleepy from all the internetting.
The greatest crime in world history.
Thank you James. I think we've simply let the checks and balances slide since1945, busy rebuilding the countries destroyed and basked too long in a victory perceived as good triumphing over evil when in fact the 'good' victors stole most of the wicked spells from the evil losers.
Eternal vigilance is hard work.
Bon courage, Charles.