Contribution Part 115 – 2021 # 08)
Have our authorities overstepped their bounds by moving towards compulsory vaccinations? (What does the post-WWII Nuremberg Code have to say?)
BRADES, Montserrat, July 7, 2021 – A recent Government of Montserrat Human Resources circular of June 30th entitled “Updated Guidance on Discretionary Leave Provisions” has come to our attention here at TMR. In key parts, it reads:
“Public officers who apply for and are awarded Government Scholarships to study at institutions abroad will, from the academic year 2021/2022 be required to be vaccinated before traveling to take up these awards . . . . It will also be a requirement for public officers attending training courses abroad to be fully vaccinated.”
Of course, given the third jab proposed for Autumn this year and reports of a train of onward booster shots every year or even every six months (as TMR has already reported[1]), “fully vaccinated” is a meaningless, dead term. No, given what officials and even BBC[2] have said, it’s not “two jabs plus two weeks and you’re good to go.” BBC: “[p]lans for a Covid booster jab programme in the autumn will be set out in the next few weeks, [now former UK Health Secretary] Matt Hancock has said.”
Now, given utterly unnecessary sharp polarisation and accusations such as “incitement,” a point of clarification: there is evidence that vaccines can be effective and fairly safe. However, as risk is not evenly distributed in the population, if one has a significant medical history, consult a physician before any serious medical intervention. Where, too, if a train of treatments is in view, overall risks obviously can rise with such repeated exposure.
However, the bigger question raised by the circular is compulsory treatment – “required,” “a requirement” – in the context of rushed experimental vaccines that to date only have emergency or contingent authorisation, not full approval. Tests for long-term effects and risks cannot be rushed.
Where, this obviously means – never mind objections by officialdom – they are still experimental and of course, there are significant concerns about risks. Also, after the horrific Nazi medical experiments,[3] the Nuremberg Courts that judged war criminals issued a code for experimental medical treatments, which was then embedded in international and national law as well as in ethical standards for medical and research practice. This Nuremberg Code reads, in key parts[4]:
“[C]ertain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally . . . certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts . . . The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have the 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[5] 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.”
A statement by Frontline Doctors group on Ivermectin
This is already decisive.
For, this means, sing- off- the- same- hymn- sheet PR talking points that suppress or stigmatise significant alternative views held by qualified people or simple concerns raised by the public are unethical and create liability. This includes marginalising concerns on risks of treatments,[6] the manifest fact that we are dealing with an unprecedented rushed global vaccination experiment, and issues regarding unduly sidelined evidence[7] that treatments such as Ivermectin-based cocktails can be effective.
In short, it is arguable that we have not been given a balanced briefing that includes a true and fair view of reasonable alternatives, concerns, and risks.
Even if one could argue that we are increasingly or already beyond “experimental” treatment, a fortiori logic applies.
That is, if coercion, manipulation, hidden motives, and suppression of reasonable alternatives and/or concerns are improper for medical experiments, for cause – “how much more” or “just like that” – they are also equally unacceptable for treatments in general. So, denial of the experimental status of the rushed vaccines does not allow one to wriggle off the hook.
The Nuremberg Code continues:
“[B]efore 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 . . .”
With a third jab and onward train of booster shots already being on the table, with emerging issues and concerns on risks (think, blood clots and heart issues for young men) and more, it is simple fair comment to note that such informed consent has long since been undermined. Obviously, informed consent applies “just as much” to more or less established treatments.
Then, we see:
“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 . . .”
So, if there is reasonable access to and evidence of plausibly effective, less risky treatments (such as Ivermectin), then that should be fairly investigated and frankly disclosed.
Similarly, naturally acquired immunity is known to be highly effective. Some even suggest that it can be superior to that from many vaccines. So, why aren’t we testing for natural immunity before vaccinations and insisting on vaccinating people who have had and recovered from Covid-19?
The other methods or means test is also significant.
For, why are we using “gold standard” criteria for “evidence” that block the voice of otherwise valid “real-world evidence” and rule out otherwise plausibly credible treatments?
This lends added force to our next snippet from the Nuremberg Code:
“Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death . . .”
That speaks for itself, especially when we see:
“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.”
Resort to compulsion cannot be justified. The circular above is ill-advised and the precedent it may set is dangerous.
Accordingly, we find a final duty of those in charge of medical interventions:
“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. “
Where, for cause, the attempted defence: “We were following the orders of legitimate authorities” was rejected by the Courts at Nuremberg.
This you will find does have some bearing to the United Nations “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)”
[1] TMR, June 25, 2021: https://www.themontserratreporter.com/the-emerging-covid-vax-booster-shot-train/
[2] See BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57570377 and https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57548796.amp
[3] See https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-medical-experiments
[4] See, http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/
[5] That is, hidden.
[6] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/facebook-fact-check-fallacies-and-pandemic-panics-2/
[7] TMR, https://www.themontserratreporter.com/ivermectin-and-the-vaccine-debate/
