It is unfortunate that the majority of younger people — those born after say 1970 — who have been subjected to a near-absence of sound world history education in the public schools, cannot likely locate Germany on a world map, and most definitely have never heard of the Nurnberg Code nor why it was established. These are very specific principles not only outlined for every human in the world going forward but embedded in the conscience of all who knew the details of the evils that had just befallen humankind. How quickly we forget such trivialities.
Here is the Nurnberg Code (or Nuremberg without the umlaut) verbatim as it would otherwise apply today to those corps, governments, and “sporting” organizations who would have you succumb to the master’s whip of a Pfizer jab (with thanks to the National Vaccine Information Center):
The Nuremberg Code: The Rights of Individuals Must Come First
Out of the Doctors Trial in Nuremberg came the Nuremberg Code, of which Yale law professor, physician and ethicist Jay Katz has said “if not explicitly then at least implicitly, commanded that the principle of the advancement of science bow to a higher principle: protection of individual inviolability. The rights of individuals to thoroughgoing self-determination and autonomy must come first. Scientific advances may be impeded, perhaps even become impossible at times, but this is a price worth paying.” 42
The First Principle of the Nuremberg Code is “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, 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.”44
The Nuremberg Code, which speaks most specifically to the use of human beings in medical research but also has been viewed by bioethicists and U.S. courts as the basis for the right to informed consent to medical procedures carrying a risk of injury or death, was followed by the passage in 1964 of the Helsinki Declarations by the World Medical Association. Like the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declarations emphasized the human right to voluntary, informed consent to participation in medical research that may or may not benefit the individual patient, science or humanity.45 (References hyperlinked from original).
So, the issue is this: there is absolutely NO WAY informed consent can be conferred if no one knows what happens to a vaccinee 5-8-10 years after getting this novel therapy. Now, how does one appeal rationally with exemption letters to mandating institutions – schools, governments, corporations – who are about to make life miserable for employees, students, etc.? Although this will have to work out, today’s “cave-in” by Loyola University in Chicago to 11 students who threatened a lawsuit over denial of exemption letters could be the start. There are many reasons for exemption:
- Religious exemption. This needs to have some basis in fact regarding fetal tissue origination of vaccine components, basic religious doctrine against vaccines, etc. Nonetheless, this is a strong root to exemption.
- Previous infection. Although this may require documentation, it is starting to look as if a previous infection with CV 19 could be a mild contraindication to getting the vaccine. The reason for this is that this may set that individual up for a major “hyper immune” reaction and a much greater risk of adverse side effects of many types. Because, minimally, anecdotal evidence strongly suggests this, consent cannot be “informed” because it SIMPLY HAS NOT BEEN STUDIED! how can one grant “informed consent” when there is absolutely no science about a risky outcome? One could say this in general about the vaccine entirely, but here, there is emerging clinical evidence that not only are individuals with previous infection at risk for vaccine reactions, their natural immunity may be up to 700 times greater then the immunity granted by any of the vaccines. This should be enough for an exemption letter.
- Chronic inflammatory/autoimmune conditions that could significantly be exacerbated by the administration of this vaccine. This exemption goes without saying and should be granted summarily. Hopefully there are physicians in the community intelligent enough to spell this out for patients.
- Any predisposition – genetic, family history, or personal medical history – of thromboembolic phenomena should preclude the administration of the vaccine. Have you had Leiden factor V diagnosed because of the history of a blood clot? Automatic exemption. Find a doctor who will write it.
- Stating the risk:benefit ratio for low risk groups. This would include any otherwise healthy person basically under the age of 50 where the risk of significant morbidity is minimal particularly since the emergence of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and robust vitamin D levels as major mitigating factors. This should be a choice for a low risk individual. On the “risk” side are the tens of thousands of deaths that have occurred in individuals in those low risk age groups that remain unexplained. They are also “under advertised” whether here or in Europe. The deaths and millions of serious adverse reactions are mounting, and yet, many of the social media, mainstream media, and print media seem to have had their tongues cut off in terms of doing a story on this. If this isn’t enough to make one a conspiracist, then I don’t know what would.
- Lack of legal immunity. What would happen if the mandating institution AND individual representing that institution were held legally responsible for any and all adverse medical reactions occurring after the vaccination? Would they still be interested in a blanket imposition with threat of disenrollment, employment termination, etc.? What if John or Mary Smith, representing a corporation or university had to have their signature notarized accepting any and all responsibility medically for that person after vaccination? In the absence of acceptance of that responsibility, it would be a tacit admission that they are imposing a risky medical intervention without informed consent. My amateur legal homework tells me that this would be most definitely something that would hold up in court and minimally might make those authoritarian representatives think twice about the mandate itself. Stay tuned on this, because threat of accepting the medical legal responsibility for adverse events – things that the makers of the vaccines are completely immune against – might be a game changer.