Doctors Nurses Ethics & Law

During the Second World War, the Nazi’s performed horrific torture and mutation which they called “medical experiments” on imprisoned groups, most notably the Jewish people. Following the war, international groups worked to avoid such experimental abuse of people in the future. In the face of the horrid evidence reviewed by the court during The Doctor’s Trial of 1947, a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation was adopted by the medical profession, becoming known as the Nuremberg Code. It was declared that medical and human experimentation must observe certain basic principles to satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts.

The ten principles of the code were given in the section of the verdict entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments”:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

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 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.

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.

In 1964, the World Medical Association (WMA) adopted the principles and developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including research on identifiable human material and data. These principles still govern all medical and experimental research, treatment, and medication administered on human beings today. Contrary to this, government leaders and non-elected, privately funded, legally registered societies, acting as supranational organizations like the WHO, have ignored ethical, moral, and legal laws and principles that oppose violations such as forced experimental viral messenger RNA injections.

Relating to the Nuremberg Code, let us consider two questions.

First, are the modified viral messenger RNA injections which are being called “vaccines” experimental? They have emergency use authorizations in the USA but are not FDA approved. Such injections have never been administered to patients before. After reviewing much of the literature, I personally believe, like many experts, that these injections are experimental.

 On December 13, 2020,  doctors protested at CDC headquarters addressing the “largest medical experiment in American history”:    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/physicians-covid-vaccines-are-experimental-and-should-never-be-mandated-or-forced

The FDA agrees. In the FDA’s reissuance of emergency use authorization letter to Pfizer dated Dec 23, 2020, it states near the top of page 2, “It is an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication.” This is clearly an experiment; but are people being told that they are voluntarily entering an experiment, and clearly consenting? No, they are being told that they are getting a covid-19 vaccine.

Based on this, if I administered this injection to a patient as a simple “vaccine”, without making it very clear to the recipient that this is an experiment, then I would find myself guilty of violating the first principle of the Nuremberg Code. That is a very serious crime!

Also, given the very low mortality rate of Covid-19, and my impression shared by many experts, that we have likely achieved herd immunity many months ago, I think I would be involved also in a violation of principles 2 and 6 of the Nuremberg Code.

Also, if we consider the severe adverse effects of prior use of coronavirus experimental vaccines in laboratory animals, violation of principles 3, 4 and 5 are also at issue here. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035421

Principle 7 is also violated, as these experimental subjects are just sent home after the injection, with no safety net for the experimental injection’s side effects.

Principle 8 is at least in question. Is this all being “conducted only by scientifically qualified persons.” with ” The highest degree of skill and care… through all stages of the experiment”? I think not.

Generally, I do not oppose institutional rules and procedures, and I want to cooperate and follow them wherever I work; but, even more, as a medical doctor, I do not want to be part of unethical medical experimentation on human trial subjects, only because it is being propagated by politicians and ill-guided media. It would violate the Nuremberg Code and amount to committing crimes against humanity.

Second, we should consider the PCR “test” as it relates to the Nuremberg Code. If people are forced to comply with an invasive procedure in order to enjoy their Charter Rights and Freedoms, or to keep their jobs, then we certainly cannot consider this voluntary consent (Principle 1). By its very design and as proven in independent laboratory tests of the PCR-Test kits, the test can neither detect the specific SARS-CoV2 virus, or the viral load used to predict if the subject is an infectious carrier. It violates principal 2 of the Nuremberg Code, which demands that it will “yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature”.

Likewise, probing through someone’s nasal passage into their nasal pharynx carries a risk of injury, especially when conducted by inadequately qualified technicians. The way PCR tests are being conducted clearly violate principle 7, but also principles 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10.