- We have the very great irony now that the very companies
whose forced medical horrors during the Nazi regime led to the creation
of the Nuremberg Code have, through their power at the WHO, set in motion
the largest forced medical experiment in human history - even militarized.
They have accomplished a complete end run around the very Code meant
to stop any repeat of their deadly forced medical experiments.
-
- And civil rights around consent have been carefully removed
by laws put in place in advance by governments such as Bush and Cheney's
and by the WHO which these pharmaceutical companies control.
-
- IG Farben was indicted for war crimes by the Nuremberg
Tribunal - for making the gas for the gas chambers, for hideous experiments
by Mengele, for buying, experimenting on and killing people with vaccines.
IG Farben was broken up into BASF, BAYER (now Baxter International
which released deadly avian flu mixed with human flu last year which would
have killed millions and then was immediately selected to produce the swine
flu vaccines), and HOECHST (formerly Aventis, now Sanofli Pasteur, also
making the swine flu vaccines and a company that put Sarkozy into office
in France where he had secret plans to remove democracy there using
the pandemic as a pretext)
-
- The Rockefellers, along with the pharmaceutical industry,
control the WHO. They had a large interest in IG Farben and were
involved in eugenics and genocide. This is who is promoting the vaccines.
The new means to forced medical experiments seem to be through fear
and emergency rather than concentration camps, and the means to eugenics
now appears to be disguising the genocidal intent and the contents
of vaccines.
-
-
- The Nuremberg Code is based on two things missing now
- informed consent. Instead, we have military on the ground to "assist"
and martial law statutes on the books in most states arranged by Bush
and Cheney that would make medical experimentation - diagnostic tests,
unknown treatments, taking of samples, and exposure to chemical "decontamination,"
and vaccination - mandatory, via threat of prison, massive fines, and detention
camps.
-
- H1N1 has brought us full circle back to forced human
medical experiments - and with the very Nazi companies and Rockefellers
involved then. One wonders then - what IS in those unknown, untested
vaccines being forced on millions?
-
- NUREMBERG CODE AGAINST FORCED VACCINES
- Anonymous 2009-10-09
-
-
- In August 1947, the judges delivered their verdict in
the "Doctors' Trial" against Karl Brandt and several others.
They also delivered their opinion on medical experimentation on human beings.
Several of the accused had argued that their experiments differed little
from pre-war ones and that there was no law that differentiated between
legal and illegal experiments.
-
- In April of the same year, Dr. Leo Alexander had submitted
to the Counsel for War Crimes six points defining legitimate medical research.
The trial verdict adopted these points and added an extra four. The ten
points constituted the "Nuremberg Code". Although the legal force
of the document was not established and it was not incorporated directly
into either the American or German law, the Nuremberg Code and the related
Declaration of Helsinki are the basis for the Code of Federal Regulations
Title 45 Volume 46[1], which are the regulations issued by the United States
Department of Health and Human Services governing federally funded research
in the United States. In addition, the Nuremberg code has also been incorporated
into the law of individual states such as California, and other countries.
-
- The Nuremberg code includes such principles as informed
consent and absence of coercion; properly formulated scientific experimentation;
and beneficence towards experiment participants.
-
- The ten points of the Nuremberg Code
-
- The ten points are, (all from United States National
Institutes of Health)
-
- 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/her 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 reasonable 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 a
prior 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.
-
- Reprinted from Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg
Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.
|
