The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamentally rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and further codified in the US. Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the US regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects for medical research. It is unlawful to conduct medical research even in the case of an emergency unless steps are taken to secure. informed consent of all participants.
Article 6, section 3: In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent. Clearly, mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations fail this test on multiple fronts.
In Doe #1 versus Rumsfeld 297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (2003) a federal court held that the United States military could not mandate Emergency Use vaccines for soldiers :”The United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs”
10 Core Declarations of the Code (click here for section)
The fact is no Covid vaccine has undergone the usual time frames (Phase I through Phase IV) and independent testing protocols and as a result have broken the Nuremberg Code of 1947.
No ‘Novel’ Covid Vaccine has been proven to be Independently Studied and identified as 1. Safe and 2. Effective (long term and with people already on Poly Pharmacy/Infirm/OAP’s or with comorbidities) and 3. You cannot even sue the manufacturer assuming you or family member was injured due to the ‘effects’ of the chemicals injected into your body. 4. in fact 20-30% of all healthcare workers won’t take it.
Connecticut Public Health Committee : please vote no on Bill 7199 : read the speech that one brave American woman gave to the state’s public health committee. Item 1 of the Nuremberg Code protects our right to informed consent. All vaccine
mandates are in violation of this code.
Nuremberg Code of 1947 – refusing the vaccine
self-spreading vaccines are real –Taylor & Francis journal Volume 15 ; is the covid vaccine one of them ?
A Real Letter to Public Health Officials
(FEBRUARY 2021) Dear Dr June Raine CBE,
I am sure you will be fully aware of the present bias media coverage pertaining to SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19, which has been clearly shown to be no more deadly than a normal flu virus.
The research is showing Covid-19 has an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of 0.14%, according to
The Survival Rate:
Age 0-19 – 99.997%
Age 20-49 – 99.98% Age 50-69 – 99.95% Age 70+ – 94.6%
I would like to remind you about the responsibility you have taken on as the Chief Executive, MHRA.
You have used lies, deceit and mimetic programmed propaganda about our NHS being overwhelmed and used as a focal emotional brainwashed leverage, to allow docile citizens to acquiesce to ‘fake’ science before being scared then vaccinated!
Wearing masks that don’t work, standing two metres apart and self-isolate healthy individuals. None of which has ever before been done successfully in ‘controlling’ or ‘containing’ a virus, whilst creating the illusion of a ‘fatal’ virus, you create the ‘cure’ – vaccine! It is like something out of a Hollywood Movie – Contagion.
The fact is all Covid vaccines have not undergone the usual time frames (Phase I through to Phase IV) and independent testing protocols and as a result have broken the Nuremberg Code of 1947.
It has also been brought to my attention that around £900,000 was ‘donated’ by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2017 to the MHRA. Can you please confirm this and or the true amount of funds you received from them?
as 1. Safe 2. Effective (long term and with people already on Poly Pharmacy/Infirm/OAP’s or with comorbidities) 3. You cannot sue the manufacturer if you or family member was injured due to the ‘effects’ of the chemicals injected into your body.
Since Covid hit big changes have been made to the very definition of the word vaccine !
In 2019, Meriam-Webster’s definition of a vaccine was “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.”. Just after the pandemic hit, in early 2021, they had changed the definition to “A preparation that is administered as by injection to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious disease”:
- A: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
- B: a preparation of genetic material (such a a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)” spike proteins never fit the standard definition !
If vaccination is a public health measure meant to protect and benefit the collective, then it must: render immunity to the inoculated individual and Inhibit transmission of the disease from the vaccinated person.
But the mRNA vaccines do not do these things. As such, they cannot even qualify for use as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk.
However the opposite is true ! The only one benefiting from the vaccine is that person alone, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with one spike protein (new variants have NEW spike proteins); to accept the risks “for the greater good” of the community is nonsense.
Marketing mRNA Therapy as Vaccine Violates Federal Law
Since mRNA vaccines do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine, referring to them as vaccines, and marketing them as such, is a deceptive practice that violates 15 U.S. Code Section 41 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,10 the law that governs advertising of medical practice.
In Canada the National Joint Council (NJC) agreement says that The employer has a duty to accommodate the employee’s medical issues which includes any issues with vaccinations: Fears, phobias , belief in government conspiracies (Since , you know, the government has stated that it is conspiring to get its workforce to undergo a medical treatment), or perhaps just a lack of faith in
Big Brother. The government has no business developing and promoting the logistical framework by which the private sector can compel the sharing of private medical information.
The Nuremberg Code Makes 10 Declarations
There are ten points to the code, which was published in the section of the verdict entitled “Permissible medical experiments”:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is a must. 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.
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.