WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NUREMBERG CODE? – THE DEAR LEADER SERIES
Poly Tics . Social Studies
To All,
As the COVID narrative continues to collapse and the effects of coerced medical experimentation are revealed in the increasing numbers of injuries and deaths, governments and the corporations involved in or aligned with the ‘response’ are attempting to excuse and distance themselves from wrongdoing. The people must ensure that Nuremberg 2.0 brings all those responsible for crimes against humanity to account. Too many got away last time. We are already hearing a much used phrase from just after the war ended, during the Nuremberg Trials. I heard it from two border services agents while trying to safely enter my own country last week. Can You guess what it is? “We are only doing our jobs”. Imagine. History repeating. Everyone engaged in authoritarian and oppressive actions as well as genocide against citizens expected a pass because the were ‘just doing their job’ or ‘just following orders’. So many bureaucrats, politicians, and medical ‘experts’ are causing suffering and death as part of their job and were just following orders to keep their job. Many of these are starting to die from the interventions they coerced others into taking. It didn’t matter that their victims were babies, young children or otherwise healthy adults. In exchange for keeping their jobs, many of these same ‘people’ were given exemption from experimental substances being forced on others. If these are not crimes against humanity, there just aren’t any and humanity is lost. It’s tragic that humanity has fallen so hard. If you really want to understand how we got here, consider reading ‘The Psychology Of Totalitarianism’ by Matthias Desmet. Perhaps you might understand how mass formation allows for the elimination of empathy and reason in what may very well be decent people. This book is a mirror. Be sure to read down to the ten points of the Nuremberg Code. See.
Seriously,
Al Neitsch
From the New England Journal of Medicine Nov.13,1997 :
50 Years after Nuremberg
The Nuremberg Code has not been officially adopted in its entirety as law by any nation or as ethics by any major medical association. Nonetheless, its influence on global human-rights law and medical ethics has been profound.6 Its basic requirement of informed consent, for example, has been universally accepted and is articulated in international law in Article 7 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).6,22 Informed consent, with specific reliance on the Nuremberg Code, is also the basis of the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, the most recent guidelines promulgated by the World Health Organization and the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (1993).23
The World Medical Association, established during World War II, has been accused of purposely trying to undermine Nuremberg in order to distance physicians from Nazi medical crimes.24 The election of a former Nazi physician and SS member, Hans-Joachim Sewering, to the presidency of that organization in 1992 added credibility to that accusation.24 (Because of public criticism, Sewering later withdrew.) Nonetheless, the various versions of the Declaration of Helsinki promulgated by the World Medical Association since 1964, although attempting to have peer review supplement informed consent and even supplant it as their central principle in the context of “therapeutic research,” all implicitly acknowledge Nuremberg’s authority. Both the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki served as models for the current U.S. federal research regulations, which require not only the informed consent of the research subject (with proxy consent sometimes acceptable, as for young children), but also prior peer review of research protocols by a committee (the institutional review board of the hospital or research institution) that includes a representative of the community.25
The Nuremberg Code focuses on the human rights of research subjects, the Declaration of Helsinki focuses on the obligations of physician-investigators to research subjects, and the federal regulations emphasize the obligations of research institutions that receive federal funds. Nonetheless, by insisting that medical investigators alone cannot set the rules for the ethical conduct of research, even when guided by beneficence and Hippocratic ethics, and by adopting a human-rights perspective that acknowledges the centrality of informed consent and the right of the subject to withdraw, the Nuremberg Code has changed forever the way both physicians and the public view the proper conduct of medical research on human subjects. Fifty years after Nuremberg, we recognize the human-rights legacy of the Nuremberg Code and are better able to face the critical challenge of applying the Code in its entirety and enforcing its human-rights provisions.
The Nuremberg Code – DIRECTIVES
FOR HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION
The Nuremberg Military Tribunal’s decision in the case of the United
States v Karl Brandt et al. includes what is now called the Nuremberg
Code, a ten point statement delimiting permissible medical
experimentation on human subjects. According to this statement,
humane experimentation is justified only if its results benefit society and
it is carried out in accord with basic principles that “satisfy moral,
ethical, and legal concepts.” To some extent the Nuremberg Code has
been superseded by the Declaration of Helsinki as a guide for human
experimentation.
–“Permissible Medical Experiments.” Trials of War Criminals before
the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10.
Nuremberg October 1946 – April 1949, Washington. U.S. Government
Printing Office (n.d.), vol. 2., pp. 181-182.
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 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 probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith,
superior skill and careful judgement required by him that a
continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury,
disability, or death to the experimental subject
“The corrupt, self righteous will offend and break all laws, without empathy, under the guise of public good, knowing that the truly righteous fear the consequences and inconvenience of doing the right things to and against those that commit the offences. Call it what it is : the long waged battle of good against evil. Can one exist without the other?” – Howard