August 19, 2022
On Saturday, August 20th, The World Council for Health will convene Doctors, Nurses and medical professionals from around the world in Nuremberg to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg Code. However, this gathering is very different from past anniversaries .
Below I continue the story on the event with an outline of the original Code. But first, please watch this important message from the medical professionals on the importance of the Nuremberg Code and the events of the last 2 years:
75 years ago, in the wake of the atrocities of forced, coerced medical experimentation on humans in World War II, leaders universally agreed to create a doctrine that would forever prevent such crimes against humanity from occurring again. On April 17, 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes which outlined six points defining legitimate research. The verdict of August 19 reiterated almost all of these points in a section entitled "Permissible Medical Experiments" and revised the original six points into ten. The Nuremberg Code was born. Those who suffered through the unspeakable events of that period were determined to leave a reminder through guide of basic medical rights for future generations, with the hope that medicine and propaganda would never be weaponized against human beings again.
Sadly, 2 years shy of the 75th anniversary, the lessons of Nuremberg were ignored and history has been repeated. The planned, coordinated, and frankly evil measures taken by Globalist leaders, Big Pharma, Hospital Conglomerates, Mainstream Media Local Governments and Private Corporations have forced hundreds of millions worldwide to take an experimental COVID-19 drug. The COVID drugs have killed more humans in one year than every other vaccine in history - COMBINED. The COVID drugs are not vaccines - by definition - they are genetic modification drugs. (READ: Whistleblower: COVID Shot is NOT Vaccine, It is Experimental Genetic Engineering).
On Saturday, August 20th, The World Council for Health will convene Doctors, Nurses and medical professionals from around the world in Nuremberg. The group will commemorate the anniversary of the Nuremberg Code, but more importantly, will collaborate and deliver a joint declaration and call to action for the world.
Nuremberg 2.0 is here. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they are powered by an unstoppable force - truth. The event will stream live and on replay on the World Council for Health Website - LINK
Why is this relevant? Because to this day, every last one of the COVID "Vaccines" are legally considered "Experimental." They are all available under CDC Emergency Use Authorization.
Despite what Google and the Mainstream Media tells you, THERE IS NO FDA-APPROVED COVID-19 VACCINE. I repeat - the FDA has not approved the COVID-19 vaccines.
At this moment, you're likely confused, because the media widely reported the FDA's approval of a Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine in December of 2021. The problem? It's not the vaccine being given to anyone in the United States. The FDA approved "Comirnaty", a variation of the Pfizer drug that, days later, the company was forced to admit was not available in the US. - READ THE STORY HERE
What it all means is that the world was used for the largest medical experiment in human history. And the results have been devastating.
- - -
The Nuremberg Code - An Outline
On August 19, 1947, the judges of the American military tribunal in the case of the USA vs. Karl Brandt et. al. delivered their verdict. Before announcing the guilt or innocence of each defendant, they confronted the difficult question of medical experimentation on human beings. Several German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from previous American or German ones. Furthermore they showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation. This argument worried Drs. Andrew Ivy and Leo Alexander, American doctors who had worked with the prosecution during the trial.
On April 17, 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes which outlined six points defining legitimate research. The verdict of August 19 reiterated almost all of these points in a section entitled "Permissible Medical Experiments" and revised the original six points into ten. Subsequently, the ten points became known as the "Nuremberg Code."
[FROM TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NUREMBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS UNDER CONTROL COUNCIL LAW NO. 10. NUREMBERG, OCTOBER 1946–APRIL 1949. WASHINGTON, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949–1953.]
PERMISSIBLE MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS
The great weight of the evidence before us is to the effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
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 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 probably 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.