Nuremberg Code 75th anniversary August 19, 2022, Medical experimentation on human beings, NC Physicians demand end to hospital’s COVID-19 vaccine trial on children
Nuremberg Code 75th anniversary August 19, 2022, Medical experimentation on human beings, NC Physicians demand end to hospital’s COVID-19 vaccine
trial on children
From the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
“On August 19, 1947, the judges of the American military tribunal in the case of the USA vs. Karl Brandt et. al. delivered their verdict. Before announcing the guilt or innocence of each defendant, they confronted the difficult question of medical experimentation on human beings. Several German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from previous American or German ones. Furthermore they showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation. This argument worried Drs. Andrew Ivy and Leo Alexander, American doctors who had worked with the prosecution during the trial. On April 17, 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes which outlined six points defining legitimate research. The verdict of August 19 reiterated almost all of these points in a section entitled "Permissible Medical Experiments" and revised the original six points into ten. Subsequently, the ten points became known as the "Nuremberg Code."“
From NEJM on the 50th anniversary.
“Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code
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. 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.”
“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.”
“The Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research.1-6 The Code was formulated 50 years ago, in August 1947, in Nuremberg, Germany, by American judges sitting in judgment of Nazi doctors accused of conducting murderous and torturous human experiments in the concentration camps (the so-called Doctors' Trial).7 It served as a blueprint for today's principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research.”
“They contended that these experiments were necessary and that the “good of the state” takes precedence over that of the individual.12 Leibbrand replied that “the state could order deadly experiments on human subjects, but the physicians remained responsible for [not] carrying them out.””
“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.”
Now read this.
From North Carolina Physicians for Freedom.
“A group of North Carolina physicians is calling for a halt to a hospital system’s COVID-19 vaccine trial on young children.
The North Carolina Physicians for Freedom (NCPFF) is demanding that the Atrium Health Levine Children’s Hospital in Charlotte, North Carolina, cease its Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine testing on children aged 6 months to under 5 years old.
Atrium Health announced its clinical trial study on May 9. It said it would “evaluate safety, tolerability, and immune response to the vaccine among this age group.”
“Not only is this completely unnecessary, but it’s also toxic, NCPFF co-founder Dianna Lightfoot told The Epoch Times.”
“Among adverse reactions that have been reported are myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart that causes the heart muscle to die, blood clots, and severe disability affecting the nervous system, NCPFF said.
NCPFF said the risk of heart complications from the vaccines among boys 12 to 15 years of age “is much higher than the risk they might have to be hospitalized because of COVID-19 itself.”
“Heart damage cannot be minimized as rare or mild. All forms of heart damage are serious and in children, the long-term consequences are not known and could be very serious if not fatal,” Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the world’s leading cardiologists, said in NCPFF’s press release.
There has also been an inadequate amount of time to determine long-term vaccine adverse events from the novel mRNA and viral DNA vector vaccines because the adverse events don’t show until several years after the introduction of the vaccine, NCPFF said.
NCPFF pointed to a CDC study that said 74.2 percent of children aged 0 to 11 already have natural immunity, which NCPFF said is demonstrated through over 150 studies to give “robust, long-lasting protection” against COVID-19.
“There is no rational argument or empirical data to justify administering these ‘warp-speed’ developed vaccines to young children who are at near-zero statistical risk for death or serious disease from the virus. To proceed with an experimental COVID vaccine to children is reckless and poses an unacceptable risk-to-benefit profile,” said Dr. Bose Ravenel, an NCPFF adviser board member with 37 years of experience as a pediatrician in private practice and 11 years as associate clinical professor of pediatrics at the UNC Department of Pediatrics from 1976 to 1987.
“Various hospital systems in North Carolina and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services have aggressively promoted vaccination against COVID-19 for minors and young adults, even though their risks associated with receiving the vaccine far exceed any potential benefit,” NCPFF said. “These vaccinations often have taken place without a legitimate informed consent process and occasionally without parental consent. Patients are often told that the vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ with no qualification.””
