Everyone knows the vaccine trials are still underway with every one of the vaccines manufacturers.
This makes them undisputably experimental biologics.
This means everyone who receives these experimental biologics is a subject in said experiment.
We’ve all heard of the Nuremberg Code, which developed after the Nazis were defeated, to help ensure those atrocities never happened again, but here we are again, already making the same mistakes, just 73 years later, starting in 2020.
Below are the 10 principles of the Nuremberg Code, with my bolded notations added to point out just a few of the many current blatant violations.
- The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent (aka legal adult); should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice (i.e. not a child), without the intervention of any element of force (e.g. mandates), fraud (i.e. CDC and FDA data falsification), deceit (e.g. FDA request to bury the test results for 75 years), duress (e.g. quarantine), overreaching (e.g. OSHA, POTUS), or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion (e.g. employment, bribes, rewards, etc.); and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved (i.e. the new gene therapy technology) 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 (e.g dosage), duration (e.g. the number of boosters needed), and purpose of the experiment (i.e. immunity and prevention of transmission as originally promised, but then changed to “protection” and waning effectiveness); the method and means by which it is to be conducted (e.g. no placebo, no control group, mixing of brands is OK later, etc.); all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected (i.e. a complete VAERS tour and instruction on how to read it and report within it); and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment (i.e. all adverse events and deaths reported through all channels). The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment (aka the buck stops with them, and cannot blame it on “improper training” from a higher-up, making each person civilly and criminally responsible). It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity (i.e. no one is unaccountable or immune from prosecution in the chain of command, from the president, all the way down to the lab tech or volunteer phlebotomist).[13]
- The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society (i.e. efficacy as INITIALLY promised), unprocurable by other methods or means of study (e.g. alternative treatments or therapeutics), and not random and unnecessary in nature (e.g. mixing brands without any prior studies).
- The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation (zero studies done) and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease (ZERO knowledge, since its a NOVEL virus), or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment (i.e. no control group monitoring, which would be the unvaccinated infected and unvaccinated non-infected).
- The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury (all prior vaccines were halted with less than 100 total deaths).
- No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur (total unknown, since mRNA is a new tech); except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
- 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 (e.g. a “threat” equal to, or less than past flu bugs).
- Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
- The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons (i.e. no volunteer phlebotomists). 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 (e.g. providing impeccable assistance and medical care to those who suffer adverse reactions).
- 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 (i.e. refusing the second shot or boosters, without penalty of losing vaccination status).
- 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 (e.g. more deaths so far than all the vaccines combined since the record-keeping began).
The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine seems to think we should still be abiding by these rules today. I bet the Jews in Germany at that time would also feel this way if we were to ask them. If you disagree though, you might be interested in the US “Common Rule,” partially outlined below, which is a 1981 rule of ethics (revised in 2018) regarding biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects in the USA. It’s strikingly similar to the code above and just as violated with today’s “vaccine” trials.
The regulations are encapsulated in the 1991 revision to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Title 45 CFR 46.111 (see below, with my bolded comments, and click here for the link source).
The Common Rule is the baseline standard of ethics by which any government-funded research in the US is held (or was, prior to 2020, anyway).
§46.111 Criteria for IRB approval of research.
(a) In order to approve research covered by this policy the IRB shall determine that all of the following requirements are satisfied:
(1) Risks to subjects are minimized:
(i) By using procedures that are consistent with sound research design (big fail) and that do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk (big fail), and
(ii) Whenever appropriate, by using procedures already being performed on the subjects (nope – first time ever) for diagnostic (use of flawed PCR?) or treatment purposes (was not supposed to be a treatment, but a vaccine).
(2) Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects (big fail), and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result (originally told subjects it would provide immunity and stop transition in just two shots). In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research (as distinguished from risks and benefits of therapies subjects would receive even if not participating in the research). The IRB should not consider possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research (e.g., the possible effects of the research on public policy) as among those research risks that fall within the purview of its responsibility (violation here too, as this has absolutely been used in forming public policy).
(3) Selection of subjects is equitable (big fail – mostly healthy, young subjects selected). In making this assessment the IRB should take into account the purposes of the research (immunity and to stop the spread) and the setting in which the research will be conducted (in the world with no variable controls or control group). The IRB should be particularly cognizant of the special problems of research that involves a category of subjects who are vulnerable to coercion (everywhere) or undue influence (in many forms), such as children (big violation), prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity (not even considered), or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons (i.e. get the shot or lose your job).
(4) Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by, §46.116 (click here to see blatant violations in virtually every single point listed).
(5) Informed consent will be appropriately documented or appropriately waived in accordance with §46.117 (click here to see blatant violations in virtually every single point listed).
(6) When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects (no data collection whatsoever – in fact, VAERS reporting is actually discouraged and even rejected in many cases).
(7) When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data (massive violations of vax status, vax card proof requirements, vaccine passports, etc.).
- (i) The Secretary of HHS will, after consultation with the Office of Management and Budget’s privacy office and other Federal departments and agencies that have adopted this policy, issue guidance to assist IRBs in assessing what provisions are adequate to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data (zero effort so far).
(ii) [Reserved.]
(8) For purposes of conducting the limited IRB review required by §46.104(d)(7)), the IRB need not make the determinations at paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section, and shall make the following determinations:
- (i) Broad consent for storage, maintenance, and secondary research use of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens is obtained in accordance with the requirements of §46.116(a)(1)-(4), (a)(6), and (d); (completely ignoring this rule)
(ii) Broad consent is appropriately documented or waiver of documentation is appropriate, in accordance with §46.117; and (completely ignoring this rule)
(iii) If there is a change made for research purposes in the way the identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens are stored or maintained, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data. (completely ignoring this rule)
(b) When some or all of the subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children (even vaxxing now without parental consent or even knowledge), prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects. (completely ignoring this rule)
DO YOU REALLY NEED TO SEE ANY MORE EVIDENCE?
WAKE UP!
THIS IS NOTHING SHORT OF A WORLDWIDE CRIMINAL ACTION AGAINST HUMANITY!
