Nuremberg Code vs Vaccine Mandates

FACT: The COVID-19 vaccines are all experimental vaccines and will remain experimental for a while.

The following is the first of the ten points in the Nuremberg Code of 1947 as it was listed in the section of the judges’ verdict entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments”:

~~~
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.

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 current order from the government of the United States of America requiring that companies with over 100 employees must require their employees be vaccinated with any of these experimental vaccines is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the Nuremberg Code.

Companies that require their employees be vaccinated with one of these experimental vaccines is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the Nuremberg Code.

My opinion:
1. I support everyone’s human right to choose whether or not to put an experimental vaccine into their body.

2. I think it’s everyone’s civic duty to get the vaccine; that said, see #1.

3. I chose to get the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

4. I am opposed to mandated vaccines.

5. I am opposed to vaccine passports.

6. I am opposed to persecuting those that choose not to get the vaccine.

7. I believe that mandating people to get an experimental vaccine is immoral, against accepted human rights, and violates the Constitution of the United States of America.

LIBERTY
The state of being free within society from
oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on
one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.

The positive enjoyment of various social, political,
or economic rights and privileges.

The power of choice.

Freedom from control, interference, obligation,
restriction, hampering conditions, etc.;
power or right of doing, thinking,
speaking, etc., according to choice.

The freedom to live as you wish or go where you want.

The Bill of Rights clearly states in the 5th Amendment…

nor shall any person… be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law

The Bill of Rights also states in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment…

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

The United States of America government ordering all federal employees to get a COVID-19 vaccine is a direct violation of the employees individual human and Constitutional rights. United States of America ordering businesses with over 100 employees to require their employees be get a COVID-19 vaccine is a direct violation of their individual human and Constitutional rights. These actions are unconstitutional because they literally deprive people of their liberty because if they do not comply to the mandates they are fired from their jobs depriving them of work and in some places they are requiring a vaccine “passport” (i.e. proof of vaccination) therefore depriving them of taking part in normal economic rights and privileges. This is pure unadulterated persecution against healthy human beings because of a personal medical choice, this is immoral!

NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED OR COERCED BY ANY MEANS TO GET AN EXPERIMENTAL COVID-19 VACCINE. THIS IS A PERSONAL MEDICAL CHOICE AND NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!

Do You Condone Extorting, Intimidating & Persecuting Others?

27 thoughts on “Nuremberg Code vs Vaccine Mandates

  1. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), now has FDA approval for age 16 and older. If all the vaccines had FDA approval (non-experimental), would your position change much?

    Like

    1. Batman wrote, “The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), now has FDA approval for age 16 and older.”

      It’s still experimental until it is thoroughly studied for long term effects, that takes a number of years.

      Batman wrote, “If all the vaccines had FDA approval (non-experimental), would your position change much?”

      Short of connecting this to the Nuremberg Code, I wouldn’t change my position at all. Experimental or not we have the human right to choose what medical treatment(s) we put in our bodies.

      Like

  2. Remember the H1N1 pandemic?

    Vaccine mandates were contrioversail then as well. Some comments are below.

    https://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/15/should-the-h1n1-vaccine-be-mandatory-for-health-care-workers/

    Shawn
    I have read the comments on this question, and would like to respond to several of the arguments for this requirement. First, as a US veteran, I am familiar with the military requirement of immunizations, and feel that the military is a very different scenario, first of all, they all know when they swear in that they are subject to additional law under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. The civilian community is not and should not fall under the same requirement. Also, There has been no indication that our health care workers are being diagnosed with a larger infection rate, and thereby no basis for such a requirement. In fact history would show that health care workers as a whole tend to have a stronger immune system due to the long term exposure to illness.

    October 15, 2009 at 11:00 am |
    Adam Caper
    Nobody should be FORCED to be vaccinated, but by the same token, nobody has a RIGHT to any particular job. We generally consider it an eminently reasonable condition of employment that people take precautions to safeguard themselves and others against tangible threats. People who prepare food are required to wash their hands and take other sanitary precautions; I see no difference in this situation.

    Personally, I think this woman is demonstrating herself to be unqualified to be in the medical profession. After all, if she is so skeptical about the value of medical technology, how can she be relied upon to responsibly deliver medical services to others? Does she act against her conscience every day when she inoculates others? Or does she follow her conscience and undermine physician’s orders? There’s obviously a poor fit, and that’s quite troubling.

    October 15, 2009 at 11:00 am

    Nick
    To say that the health care provider should get the H1N1 shot to keep everyone “safe” is ridiculous! If that’s the case then it should be required for everyone in the US because my daughter may catch the flu from someone at school, or at the mall, or at the theatre. ect. better yet if you’re that concerned oabout catching it from the healthcare provider you’d be better off getting the shot yourself to protect yourself from everyone else who is not required!.

    October 27, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    Like

    1. Michael T Ejercito wrote, “Remember the H1N1 pandemic? Vaccine mandates were controversial then as well.”

      Sure Michael, I remember H1N1 and I remember that vaccine mandates were controversial then too. Vaccines in general have been controversial to some people for a long, long time.

      Is your only point that vaccine mandates were controversial in the past? If that’s your only point then thanks Mr. Obvious, if that’s not your only point then please explain your point.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Even back then, few could have imagined creating vaccine requirements for patronizing public establishments- but only for one vaccine that is less than a year old.

        There is a qualitative difference between creating a vaccine mandate and adding a vaccine to an existing mandate.

        Like

        1. Michael T Ejercito wrote, “There is a qualitative difference between creating a vaccine mandate and adding a vaccine to an existing mandate.”

          Could you expand on that a bit so I’m clear what you’re talking about.

          Like

          1. Sure.

            Vaccine mandates have historically existed in sub-sectors of society where there is a greater interest in infection control than society in general. thus, when considering the question of adding this vaccine to an existing vaccine mandate, the question of personal autonomy had been asked and mostly answered; the remaining question is whether adding this vaccine to the mandate marginally reduces risk enough to justify the marginal increase in burden.

            This sharply contrasts a with creating new mandates for only this vaccine, for bars and restaurants and airline travel, subsectors of society which never required vaccination for polio nor measles nor mumps nor diphtheria.

            Like

  3. Glad to see you’ve mostly come around.

    The one thing we still disagree on is that this vaccine is “experimental”. It isn’t. And it won’t become experimental regardless of how many times you write it, capitalize it, or bold it.

    The vaccines went through Phase I, II and III testing, they just held them concurrently instead of consecutively, and abridged the efficacy testing. In English: The anti-vaxx lobby had pushed vaccine manufacturers into a whole lot of redundant processes out of an (in my opinion) ridiculous overabundance of caution. The Trump administration cut away red tape.

    You could squint and say; “Well, sure, but the government started pushing vaccines before FDA approval came in, calling it an emergency measure.” And I’d say; “Sure…. But at some point that excuse wears thin. The FDA *has* approved some of the vaccines, and we have administered over six billion doses globally over the last year. How many doses over how long a time do you think is necessary to move away from the “experimental” label?

    We know what it does, we know the side effects, we know the efficacy rates, we have literally billions of case studies, and yet, people are pretending that we don’t know what we actually know. And some of these same people will take prophylactics like Ivermectin at such quantities that they’re literally shitting out their intestinal lining, because concern about the vaccine for some reason seems more serious than their concern for taking 900 times the recommended dose of an anti-parasitic. At what point do we just accept the obvious truth: The people who say they’re concerned about the vaccine aren’t particularly reasonable people, and perhaps don’t deserve to be treated like they are?

    Like

      1. With the exception of your opinion that the vaccine is experimental, and my opinion that the unvaccinated are unserious people, your opinion basically lines up with mine, and you seem to have shifted on the issues. If you haven’t then you sure didn’t make yourself clear last time.

        But “experimental” is important…. Because the vaccines aren’t. And IF they isn’t, then a whole lot of other things change. Most material to this post: The Nuremburg code becomes irrelevant, because the code was developed as guidelines on human experimentation.

        But more; If it’s not experimental, than the government can mandate it in some circumstances and can create versions of vaccine passports; Children’s requirement to be up to date on vaccinations to attend public schools is constitutional, relatively well understood, and normal. I’m making an assumption here, but you’re probably of the age to have a vaccine scar on your upper left arm…. Do you remember how you got it?

        The question I posed, which I think you need to answer, is: “The FDA *has* approved some of the vaccines, and we have administered over six billion doses globally over the last year. How many doses over how long a time do you think is necessary to move away from the “experimental” label?”

        Because if you want to assert that the Covid vaccines are still experimental, then what are the metrics for that? What is the difference between an experimental and non-experimental vaccine, and what is the device by which an experimental vaccine graduates into being a vaccine?

        Like

        1. “If they isn’t”. Jesus I miss edit functions. “If they aren’t”, obviously. I made a couple of errors like that because I started the post writing as if the vaccine was a singular thing that “is”, and by the end of it I’d corrected myself, there are multiple vaccines, and they “are”.

          Like

    1. Humble Talent wrote, “The one thing we still disagree on is that this vaccine is “experimental”. It isn’t.”

      You’re welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts. You’re simply wrong.

      The study on the long term side effects part of this is not complete and won’t be complete for a few years. Even with FDA approval, it’s still experimental.

      Like

      1. There is no such thing as a “long term side effect” in that context.

        Vaccines work by delivering a parcel of material in your arm, which your body slowly absorbs and processes. two weeks after the injection, that material is gone, and any adjustment your body has made due to it is basically complete. Give it a month for good measure and caution. There is no device by which additional side effects could possibly manifest.

        The reason vaccine trials ran up to two years was because they wanted to see if effects of the vaccine “wear off” over time, they call that efficacy testing. But by now, between the stage trials and the vaccines in the general population, we have two years of data. We weren’t really measuring efficacy in the public population, but even if you want to argue that we were, the normal timeframe for trials has been adhered to.

        So again…. At what point, exactly, does an experimental vaccine become an accepted vaccine?

        Like

        1. “There is no device by which additional side effects could possibly manifest.”

          To expand on this, even the antivaxxer lobby previous to Covid understood this. They would assert things like “This child developed autism within days of a vaccine” because they understood the basics: In order to tie a side effect to the vaccine, you have a very narrow window for side effects to manifest.

          Like

          1. You have an obvious strong bias towards antivaxxers; however, don’t place all the people that are opposed to the COVID-19 vaccines in the antivaxxer lobby not all fit in that category. I personally know some of the people that won’t get the COVID-19 vaccines and they are NOT antivaxxer’s.

            Like

          2. I wear my bias on my sleeve and believe it is honestly come by.

            To be clear… I actually think the olde-timey anti-vaxxers were slightly better on this issue, because at least they were trying to incorporate the data into their narrative. They had in fact done enough research into how vaccinations work to understand the window of opportunity, if not much else.

            Like

    2. Humble Talent wrote, “The people who say they’re concerned about the vaccine aren’t particularly reasonable people, and perhaps don’t deserve to be treated like they are?”

      That’s pure bigoted trolling, do it again and your gone.

      You’ve been warned.

      Like

  4. I hope these links work. I am not a paid subscriber but I created a free account so they work for me. These interviews with Dr. Malone are part of the American Thought Leaders series that carry a lot of excellent, informative, interviews.
    I suggest reading the text because Malone is an annoyingly slow talker.

    At the 20min mark of part 2 he discusses how the immune system reacts/evolves to these spike protein specific mRNA vaccines with the end result being similar to the overuse of antibiotics that create superbugs. I consider this a long-term effect and we are only at the beginning stage of massive global vaccination.

    PART 1: Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA Vaccine Inventor, on Latest COVID-19 Data, Booster Shots, and the Shattered Scientific ‘Consensus’

    PART 2: Dr. Robert Malone on Ivermectin, Escape Mutants, and the Faulty Logic of Vaccine Mandates

    In this Joe Rogan podcast, he cites a report (8:40 mark) that only 5% of total USA covid deaths can be attributed strictly to covid and the other 95% had an average of 4 co-morbidities. Over vaccination of the under 55 and healthy will prove to be a big mistake along with withholding, discouraging, besmirching, early onset proven non-vax RX.

    The Great Barrington Declaration has it right with *focused* strategic vaccination/isolation and addresses the barely discussed ill-effects of widespread lockdowns.

    Great Barrington Declaration

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I really liked the discussion on Ivermectina at 3:10-10:00 in the part II video. There are lots of people that think people are wackos for taking a “horse drug” that need to watch that part so they can stop demonizing people that talk or use Ivermectina.

      Like

  5. I wrote this essay and published it on Reddit.

    While a person who broke anti-sodomy laws could be temporarily excluded from transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society, that exclusion could only happen via the criminal justice process, on which there are heavy constitutional constraints against the state.

    Similarly, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, by criminalizing failure to get vaccinated, a person convicted could be temporarily excluded from transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society, that exclusion, again, could only happen via the criminal justice process, on which there are heavy constitutional constraints against the state. The defendant in Jacobson was still free to engage in such transactions, as were persons convicted of anti-sodomy laws not subject to a sentence of confinement.

    Thus, even during the time when a State could punish sodomy, it could not exclude homosexuals from bars or restaurants. The same analogy applies to those who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine.

    It is indeed too narrow and too broad. It is too narrow because other vaccines which protect against deadlier diseases such as polio or measles or diphtheria or hepatitis are not required. It is too broad because it excludes people who refused one particular vaccine from a great number of transactions that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.