As an unvaccinated Australian, I was refused entry to my local public library, I lost my job as a teacher, I was unable to enter a shop to buy my son’s school supplies, unable to go to my gym, unable to go to weddings, bat or bar mitzvahs and I was unable to leave the country!! I’m still unvaccinated and not sorry!! - elkegoldberg3876
This one in particular makes me very angry. I will say fall of 2021 was the most stressful time in my life - realizing that I was going to be forced or lose my job. I waited as long as I could until dear leader announced all federal workers needed to get it or lose their jobs. In hindsight, I wish I would've faked it but I didn't think it was worth the risk. Then I had vaccine side effects that I felt I could not talk about. The gaslighting was unreal. But I wasn't forced?????!!!!! Really???? - chloegeorge5026
As an unvaccinated Australian I couldn’t go and see my dad in hospital after he suffered a kidney issue most likely a result of the vaccine. He had to come out of the hospital and see me outside. Bloody criminals is only way to describe it. - busso125
In Australia we couldn’t go inside a supermarket or anywhere without papers saying we were vaccinated. People were fined for taking the rubbish up to the street if they didn’t have a mask on. Yes in Sydney. - rhonda6791
As an Australian I was told by my employer I HAD to get the vaccine or I'd be put on leave. I took the first two under protest because I didn't want to lose our house. I'm still angry at myself and the government. I have refused to take any of the boosters. - alsmith9853
The awful woman in the masthead video is Kerry Chant, still(!) our Chief Health Officer here in New South Wales (Australia).
The video is from November 2020.
At least there was no cap on the number of elves that were exempt from the 14-day quarantine requirement.
The video that prompted this article though is this short gem from Jimmy Dore.
We have Pfizer executives, under questioning from Pauline Hanson, one of the few honest politicians in Australia, telling us that we were not forced to take the vaccine.
So, I went to the Cambridge Dictionary and found this:
Forced: An action that is forced is done because it is suddenly made necessary by a new and usually unexpected situation.
And this from Oxford Languages:
Forced: obtained or imposed by coercion or physical power.
Under both of those definitions, Australians (and people all over the world) were forced into vaccination.
At 5.09, Brett says that they are using the word from a “physically” forced perspective, as in nobody held you down and injected you, and that is their play on words…he’s probably right.
But quibbling with Pfizer executives about their misuse of a word isn’t why I’m writing this.
It’s because of something that Brett says at 6.08.
He mentions Nuremberg and says that the court believed that a “patient has the right to refuse any experimental treatment”.
Key word “experimental”.
My ears pricked up when he used that word. It was a very precise word choice.
He is right, Nuremberg never said that you have the right to refuse “any treatment” just “experimental” ones.
From the early days of Covid vaccines there was talk of “violating Nuremberg” and we need “Nuremberg 2.0” etc.
I basically nodded ignorant agreement about it all for a long time, having never read the Code but accepting that legal minds better than mine had, and if they think it’s been broken, that’s good enough for me.
But a few months ago I thought I would go and read it, just for old times’ sake, to back fill the gap in my knowledge.
As I started reading, I thought, wait a minute, something doesn’t make sense to me. Everyone that has read it, and everyone that is complaining that it’s been breached in relation to Covid vaccination, have all been silent on a much more important point. That of childhood vaccination. In that context it was a worthless breached piece of paper from the start.
If you have never actually read the bloody Code, here it is.
Nuremberg Code
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.”
“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.
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.
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.
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.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
To begin with, it’s just a Code, it’s not a Law.
So, just a bunch of vague “ethical guidelines”. That’s it.
If anyone belongs to any industry association, go and look up their ethical guidelines or Code of Ethics and reflect on how many of them are regularly breached in your industry.
Ethical guidelines are like road lane dividers, people drive over them all the time.
So, it was never about not experimenting, but about the parameters of the experiment.
Also, Nuremberg had a greater good framework from the start.
“only if its results benefit society”
“yield fruitful results for the good of society”
It refers to "voluntary consent", but what precisely constitutes "involuntary" is not clearly “delimited” [To define or mark the boundaries or limits of something].
It is a declaratory document, meaning it lacks any mechanisms for enforcement.
So, in the context of Covid, experimentation is allowed, so you are left to quibble about the parameters, definitions (there are none) and greater good claims.
But I’m interested in childhood vaccination, and that is NOT meant to be “experimental” which means that Nuremberg doesn’t apply.
But let’s think about this for a second.
What’s another word for “experiment”?
How about “trial” or “clinical trial”?
If something has NOT gone through a proper trial, if it has not been properly experimented on, then it remains in “experimental” mode. Does it not?
If something has not been tested against a proper, saline placebo, then it hasn’t completed its “experiment” so if you then use it on the public, you are “experimenting” on the public, and so Nuremberg applies.
So, if Nuremberg applies, the question I’m now asking is whether childhood vaccination is in contravention of the Nuremberg Code.
The compulsory nature of childhood vaccination clearly breaches Nuremberg’s “voluntary consent” framework.
The Code insists on the absence of "any possibility of injury, disability, or death." We now know the full scale of “injury, disability, or death”. A claim that the “small” amount of harm is a price worth paying when weighed against the “benefit to society”, has been discredited and debunked with a long list of studies proving “injury, disability and death”.
Childhood vaccination clearly fails the clinical trial criteria (no placebo) but then goes on to rely on “post-marketing surveillance”. The Code, conveniently, doesn’t provide explicit guidelines on consent for such studies.
What constitutes voluntary consent in the context of children? While the Code is significant in emphasizing the importance of informed consent, it doesn’t directly address the rights of children. The Code is conveniently silent on their rights. That is not an accident.
The Code emphasizes the importance of avoiding any "element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion."
“Force and duress” are clearly applied through childcare and school mandates.
“Fraud and deceit” are clearly in play with the absence of honest real-placebo clinical trials.
So, to wrap up, I have heard a lot about Covid vaccination and Nuremberg for the last 3 years, but as you can see, the Nuremberg “guidelines” allow for experimentation, so all you have is a debate about the “delimiting” and whether “they” veered into unethical lanes. You can take up that ethical debate with Fauci’s bioethicist wife, Christne Grady.
I’m more interested into whether Nuremberg applies to childhood vaccination, and as far as I am concerned, fake placebos maintain the “experimental” nature of childhood vaccination putting it squarely within the domain of the Nuremberg Code, and although, as I have said, the Code is just a guideline, I would like to see the full weight of the reputational damage, if nothing else, of “breaching Nuremberg” to come down on childhood vaccination.
Maybe other writers, with larger audiences than mine will arrive at the same conclusion.
Thanks for being here.
Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to help covid vaccine injured Australians.
I am always looking for good, personal GMC, covid and childhood vaccination stories. You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com
If you are Covid vaccine injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment
If you want to understand and “see” what baseline human health looks like, watch (and share) this 21 minutes
If you want to help someone, give them a book. Official Stories by Liam Scheff. Point them to a safe chapter (here and here), and they will find their way to vaccination.
Here are three eBooks I have produced so far:
FREE eBook: A letter to my two adult kids - Vaccines and the free spike protein
Share this post