Why is the Nuremberg Code being used to oppose Covid-19 vaccines?
As the UK Covid-19 vaccine roll out has gathered pace, and the use of “vaccine passports” continue to be debated, an increasing number of social media users are voicing their opposition to these moves and claiming they are an infringement of their rights under the Nuremberg Code.
The Nuremberg Code is a set of ethical research principles, developed in the wake of Nazi atrocities—specifically the inhumane and often fatal experimentation on human subjects without consent—during World War Two.
We spoke to experts in medical ethics, healthcare law and social epidemiology about the Nuremberg Code and whether its principles are applicable to the current vaccine roll out or vaccine passports. We also discussed whether the code is legally binding and the darker links the claims seem to draw between the current pandemic and the Nazi era.
What is the Nuremberg Code?
The Nuremberg Code was created in 1947 in Nuremberg, Germany, following the trial of a group of Nazi doctors accused of conducting inhumane and often deadly experiments on prisoners of concentration camps without their consent. At the conclusion of what’s also referred to as ‘The Doctors Trial’, 16 people were found guilty.
The Nuremberg Code was developed in response to the horrors of this experimentation, with the aim of protecting human subjects in medical research. The Code, and particularly its emphasis on informed consent, has had a profound impact on international human rights law and medical ethics.
The Nuremberg Code consists of 10 principles, the first of which being that the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential in any experiment on humans.
Other principles include that the experiment should be for the good of society, that all unnecessary physical and mental suffering or injury should be avoided and no experiment should be conducted if there is good reason to believe it may result in death or a disabling injury.
They also say that the human subject should be free to exit the experiment if they are suffering, and that the scientist in charge must be prepared to end the experiment if they have good reason to believe it may cause injury, disability or death to the subject if it continues.
The Nuremberg Code and Covid-19 vaccines
We have seen several examples of posts on social media claiming that Covid-19 vaccines violate the Nuremberg Code because they are somehow “experimental” and, as people receiving the vaccines are not made aware of this, they are unable to give their informed consent.
This claim that the Covid-19 vaccines are experimental is simply not true, and something we have corrected multiple times. The three Covid vaccines currently given temporary authorisation for use in the UK have been shown to be safe and effective in large scale clinical trials.
Dr Alexis Paton, lecturer in social epidemiology and the sociology of health at Aston University, Birmingham, told Full Fact that the Nuremberg Code is “very specifically about experimentation” and so although its principles would be applicable when discussing clinical vaccine trials, it is no longer relevant once a vaccine has been authorised.
She said: “The Nuremberg Code is about the active experimentation on humans, for the most part during some sort of clinical trial of some description. So when we talk about Pfizer or AstraZeneca [vaccines], we’re out of the auspices of the Nuremberg Code because this is a product that has been trialled, with appropriate ethics in place, and has been approved and is now in production and being used globally.”
Informed consent is still required for those receiving the Covid-19 or any other vaccine. But Professor Emma Cave, professor of healthcare law at Durham University, explained that the need for this does not come from the Nuremberg Code.
She said: “The Nuremberg Code relates to research, where the emphasis of informed consent requirements is on preventing the research participants from being used as a means to an end. Informed consent for treatment serves a slightly different purpose. It prevents a battery or negligence, and protects the autonomy rights of the patient. So informed consent is doing slightly different things in relation to research and treatment.”
Arguments that the vaccines are experimental usually hinge on the fact that data is being collected on any side effects in recipients, although it is normal that authorities continue to monitor the safety of all vaccines once they are approved. Data on the long term protection and safety of the Covid-19 will continue to be collected over the coming years.
Dr Julian Sheather, special advisor in ethics and human rights to the British Medical Association, told Full Fact it would be “impossible” and “unethical” to roll out any medical intervention without collecting data on it.
“It’s true of all drugs. The same would be true of something like [the anti-depressant] Prozac. There will still be people out there gathering data. Are we going to say that every single drug in circulation is an experiment?”
Other claims about the ‘experimental’ nature of the vaccines hinge on the fact they were given temporary authorisation to allow them to be distributed faster (although the vaccines still went through extensive clinical testing) and the fact the vaccines were developed so quickly (thanks in part to extra funding made available and ongoing work from before the pandemic).
The Nuremberg Code and vaccine passports
At the time of writing, the government has said that people who have had both doses of the vaccine can use the NHS app (separate to the NHS Covid-19 app) to demonstrate proof of vaccination when travelling to another country, if the country requires it. No other firm plans for ‘vaccine passports’ to gain access to certain places or events within the UK have been confirmed by the government, but discussion of their potential use has proved controversial.
A number of posts on social media have claimed that vaccine passports are a violation of the Nuremberg Code, on the grounds that if you have to have a vaccine in order to do something like travel or work, you are not actually consenting but are being forced.
Professor Cave said the Nuremberg Code was not relevant to vaccine passports.
“You could still say it’s unethical or it’s problematic, but not by focusing on the Nuremberg Code. It’s not an experimental product in that context. If restrictions are applied in relation to those who haven’t been vaccinated against Covid, consideration needs to be taken of the potential impact on people’s ability to choose freely and on the possibility that such a policy might discriminate against some groups within society.
We should be debating these matters, but we need to be accurate about the principles that we’re calling upon and the laws that we’re calling upon when we’re saying whether or not something is justifiable.”
Dr Paton told Full Fact:
“The Nuremberg Code is all about experimental subjects’ rights and the responsibilities of those doing the experiment. A vaccine passport is a policy document. It’s not unprecedented either. For example, anyone who has ever travelled to a lot of the countries in Africa knows that you won’t be granted a visa if you don’t have proof of a Yellow Fever vaccination. But that’s not experimentation. That has nothing to do with us being human subjects of a trial of any kind. It’s about the government and politics.”
Is following the Nuremberg Code a legal requirement?
Although the Nuremberg Code is not relevant in the case of the current vaccine roll out or vaccine passports, there is still the question of whether a government could be forced by law, to halt or alter its vaccine programme if it is found to be in violation of the Code’s principles.
Professor Cave told Full Fact:
“The Code isn’t and wasn’t legally binding. It’s not legally enforceable, it’s a guideline rather than law. But it is really important because it’s a blueprint for many of today’s legal and ethical standards, internationally and nationally […] the Nuremberg Code isn’t legally enforceable in itself, but its legacy has changed the way research is conducted and safeguarded to protect the human rights of research participants.”
We’ve seen multiple claims that various groups are attempting to take legal action using the Nuremberg Code over vaccination. Some international claims about this have already been fact checked. One is that a complaint has been filed with the International Criminal Court against the Israeli government, arguing that its vaccination programme is in violation of the Nuremberg Code, although Reuters has recently disproved claims that the court has “accepted” this allegation.
Similarly, reports that a Canadian court ruled that anyone who tries to force someone to be vaccinated can be prosecuted under the Nuremberg Code have been debunked.
“Morally grotesque”
It is important to note that the Nuremberg Code is not the only set of ethical guidelines for human experimentation. For example, social media users could have drawn on the more recent Declaration of Helsinki (adopted in 1964, last updated 2013), UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) or the International Ethical Guidelines for Health-Related Research Involving Humans (fourth version published 2016) to make similar (albeit also incorrect) claims.
But what is specific to the Nuremberg Code is the direct association with the atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War Two, and the emotional response this triggers. Although the social media posts don’t explicitly say it, by evoking the Nuremberg Code to talk about the Covid-19 pandemic, they link the horrors of concentration camps to the current vaccine roll out.
Misinformation thrives when feelings are manipulated in this way, as claims which create an emotional response are most likely to be shared.
The Nuremberg Code would only be relevant at the research trial stage of a vaccine’s development, not its roll out to the general public. But even then, experts told us they felt it would not be an appropriate link to draw.
Dr Paton said:
“I think it really does a disservice to people who volunteered to be part of the Covid-19 trials. The Nuremberg Code was developed because of really truly horrific atrocities that we found humans can inflict on other humans.
And to compare volunteers who want to help develop a vaccine, where the risks have been mitigated and they are being closely monitored, with the decisions of Nazi doctors to perform experiments on humans without anaesthetic, without safety, without regard for whether the human subject lived or died, I think is really inappropriate.”
Dr Sheather added:
“It’s terrible bad faith, to be honest with you. Because the Nuremberg trials were investigations into the most brutal forms of medical violation of human beings in the name of some form of research. These research subjects were tested to death and destruction.
Drawing a link between this final roll out of these vaccines and what the Nazi doctors were doing is morally grotesque.”
It’s right that medical ethics should be highly scrutinised, especially in cases like the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out where the process has been accelerated. However, it’s important not to mix up the atrocities of the past with current debates about medicine and policy.
See more here: fullfact.org
Header image: Slide Share
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
CodexCoder
| #
The doctors are being disingenuous. There have not been full human voluntary trials as normally described. The vaccine has not been fully tested and the results are in VAERS or the Yellow card system for all to see. Tell those that have lost loved ones to products released under EUA that everything is just fine. Tell them that their relatives gave fully informed consent when even the manufacturers didn’t know the full range of outcomes like VITT.
Bunch of ghouls trying out an experiment for profit.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
What a load of crap. They should also argue that the Nuremberg only requires that there was prior animal testing it doesn’t specify that the animals had to survive the testing. Just because all the ferrets died when the mRNA vaccines were tried doesn’t negate that they were tested and therefor comply to the code.
Reply
webtrekker
| #
FOOL FACTS!
Reply
Jürg Gassmann
| #
A key statement in the argument is simply untrue:
“This claim that the Covid-19 vaccines are experimental is simply not true, and something we have corrected multiple times. The three Covid vaccines currently given temporary authorisation for use in the UK have been shown to be safe and effective in large scale clinical trials.”
There is exactly the rub: The authorisations are temporary. They are temporary BECAUSE the full set of testing was not completed. It is stated in the manufacturers’ applications that Phase III – which normally would have to be completed before authorisation is given – will not be completed until 2022 or 2023. The temporary authorisations are specific that it CANNOT be claimed that they have been fully tested. Numerous tests that would normally be required before authorisation – teratogenicity, biodistribution, biodynamics – were not performed. The jabs are being administered to cohorts which were excluded from such testing as was performed: Children, pregnant women, individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, individuals with comorbidities…
To deflect the argument into a question of speed of development is dishonest.
The Nuremberg Principles have been further elaborated in the meantime – adding damning clarification.
It is not illegal to conduct medical experiments. It is not illegal to participate in medical experiments. But it IS illegal to not obtain fully informed consent – and seeing the assembly-line administration of the jabs, it simply cannot be argued that each recipient has been comprehensively informed. Consent that is not fully informed is void, and it is the attending physician’s obligations to show that information was provided and understood, and consent obtained based on the information.
It is also illegal to discriminate against anyone choosing not participate. So any vaccine mandates or passports are an open-and-shut violation of the Nuremberg Principles.
The drafters of the Nuremberg Code were not looking for a set of principles that would apply once the concentration camps were built – they sought to stop matters from ever going so far. The Principles apply at the top of the slippery slope, not only the bottom. So it is grotesque to reject the application of the Nuremberg Principles because it equates the administration of the jabs to the Holocaust.
Anyway – the Council of Europe, whose rulings do not have force of law, either, but provide guidance to the European Court of Human Rights – has already opined on the matter in Resolution 2361, which says, among other things:
“7.3. with respect to ensuring a high vaccine uptake:
7.3.1. ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to be vaccinated if they do not wish to do so;
7.3.2. ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated; […]
7.3.5. communicate transparently the contents of contracts with vaccine producers and make them publicly available for parliamentary and public scrutiny; […]”
Reply
Dev
| #
The inoculations are experimental and were released onto he public without completing a full trial.
98% of the placebo control group have since been fully vaccinated which means that the trial will never be able to achieve completion and therefore will never reach approval status.
https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/07/19/vaers-whistleblower-45000-dead-from-covid-19-vaccines-within-3-days-sparks-lawsuit-against-federal-government/
Reply
Greg Spinolae
| #
This piece is a “collectable”! – another master-class in the techniques so-called “fact checkers” use to poison the purity of “white” to “factually” black.
Roll together duplicity, convolution, conflation, some half-truths and a few whoppers and you have… a FACT CHECKER.
Reply
Phil
| #
Load of rubbish. As seen here another law case showing these vaccines are not safe. https://brandnewtube.com/v/P9X35J
Reply
Dev
| #
The inoculations are experimental and were released onto he public without completing a full trial.
98% of the placebo control group have since been fully vaccinated which means that the trial will never be able to achieve completion and therefore will never reach approval status.
https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/07/19/vaers-whistleblower-45000-dead-from-covid-19-vaccines-within-3-days-sparks-lawsuit-against-federal-government/
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
“The Nuremberg Code would only be relevant at the research trial stage of a vaccine’s development, not its roll out to the general public.”
Well, the argument is that the roll out IS the experimental stage. They skipped the animal trials altogether and are using humans instead, so we are the lab’ rats in an experiment.
The appalling thing is, they are not even monitoring the effects of this experimental phase like they normally do for animal trials.
They are not interested in any adverse effects, because they know we’re going to start dropping like flies in the autumn.
They’ll blame that on some variant”.
Then it will be compulsory vaccination for all by Xmas.
Reply
Denis dombas
| #
Jurg,11thousand dead in US,18 thousands in Europe and you said that poison is tested.you are a paid troll.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Another spam post? I know PSI has a pretty open ‘mind’, but this is just drivel
“the inhumane and often fatal experimentation on human subjects without consent”.
Well I say we are at war again, and since it’s experiments part part Two, We must stand again.
Reply
Howdy
| #
This: “Professor Cave told Full Fact:
“The Code isn’t and wasn’t legally binding. It’s not legally enforceable, it’s a guideline rather than law.”
And yet, “The Nuremberg Code provides legal justification to litigate violations of informed consent.
Under the Nuremberg Code, responsibility for violations of informed consent rests upon individual doctors, government officials – and their aiders and abettors – each of who can be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.”
https://medicalkidnap.com/2021/04/06/the-nuremberg-code-the-universal-right-of-informed-consent-to-medical-interventions-has-been-recognized-in-us-law-since-at-least-1914/
Seems the article above is posting junk, as expected. Would somebody with a real understanding of the law involved in this shed some light please.
Reply
Howdy
| #
By article above being junk, I mean the PSI posted one, not the link I posted.
Reply
Jurg Gassmann
| #
I have a strong feeling that Prof. Cave’s statements were carefully edited. What she is quoted as saying is uncontroversial, but ends up being beside the point.
The factual misstatement is made by Dr. Paton, who has degrees in philosophy and social sciences, not in law or international law.
Reply
Antonio
| #
In Italia paese noto per la corruzione politica e non, per i vaccini ,molti medici, finti medici virologi, politici, cantanti direttori di giornale stanno minacciando la popolazione Italiana che se NON ti vaccini (Jab) ti privo della libertà personale, non fai viaggi, non andrai in treno, non andrai nei concerti, non andrai nei ristoranti. Norimberga ? si, l’Italia si considera paese civile e delle libertà? sta corrompendo la popolazione con minacce verbali, minacce tramite giornali e pur sapendo che con il vaccino, puoi contagiarti e contagiare altre persone allora a cosa serve? Norimberga? obbligare per un vaccino sperimentale con la minaccia è un crimine contro l’umanità.
Reply
Pat
| #
Every paper I’ve read has stated that mRNA vaccines have never been used before so is that’s true then why are these Covid Vaccines not experimental? Also, since the virus has not been isolated then why do they keep calling the shots vaccines? I don’t care what this article says “I AM NOT GETTING THE POISON JAB.”
Reply
Squidly
| #
This article is some serious bullshit in more ways than I can count.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
@ “I think it really does a disservice to people who volunteered to be part of the Covid-19 trials.”
The above is an inaccurate statement.
The problem is that the vaccines have never been tested against the virus (SARS-CoV-2) or its illness (COVID). Clinical trials were conducted without the use of the virus (direct or indirect). Therefore, claims of vaccines’ effectiveness against the virus have to be false. It is a scientific fact which can’t be denied. It is time to rethink non-virology and humane remedies to address the illness.
More on the topic:
Claims Of Vaccine Relevancy And Efficacy Are A Big Fat Lie! (https://principia-scientific.com/claims-of-vaccine-relevancy-and-efficacy-are-a-big-fat-lie/)
COVID-19: Vaccine ‘Not Possible’ For A Virus Not Yet Quantifiable (https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-vaccine-not-possible-for-a-virus-not-yet-identified/)
Reply
Tom O
| #
Thanks John for posting this. Really. We see and know better, but for the most part, “the sheeple” read this trash and believe. No “inoculation” is “safe and effective” if it is killing even .001% of those taking it, especially since the kill rat for the “disease” for healthy people under 65 is about the same. But it is nice to see just how far these people will go. I look at this as yet more people that need to stand trial. Perhaps we should herd the whole bunch, the pols, the power freaks, the excuse makers, and put them in a pen in front a marching column of army ants.
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
Love your posts Tom O and this one’s a doozy. Right on the money.
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
The Nuremberg Code is a classic case of political duplicity. A whole lot of politicians got together after the trials and made up this code without ever passing it into law in a single country. Now mongrels like those quoted in this article can pick it to pieces at will.
Reply
Tom O
| #
Seems like a lot of lawyers seem to believe the Nuremberg code has meaning, but I do believe it is in US federal code that it is a criminal act to force a person to take part in a medical experiment, and telling people they can’t work, go to the store, or school, as examples, if they don’t sounds pretty much like forcing them to me. This “trial” on the jabs is still ongoing, so it is still just a medical experiment. But it amazes me how many people truly believe that this is an authorized and licensed medical procedure.
Reply
dnomsed
| #
As the Nurembourg 2 trials draw closer, the guilty try to cover their tracks.
Methinks thou doth protest too much. Bring your necks closer so that we can hang you guilty, murderous ghouls.
Reply
Eustace
| #
Real vaccines take years of testing. There is nothing real or safe about the current jabs. This article is, as mentioned earlier by others, drivel and filled with false information.
Reply
Phil Palij
| #
“The Nuremberg Code would only be relevant at the research trial stage of a vaccine’s development, not its roll out to the general public. But even then, experts told us they felt it would not be an appropriate link to draw.”
Clinical trials are not yet complete, we are in the experimental phase
according to US CDC VAERS SYSTEM there are only 10,991 and 551,172 Injuries
according to EUDRA European Union’s Database of Adverse Drug Reactions for COVID-19 Shots – 17,503 DEAD, 1.7 Million Injured (50% SERIOUS) Reported
The US government is being sued. Report in this video alleges under reporting of death by experimental ‘vaccine’ injection:
“US Attorney Files Lawsuit Against US Government For 45,000 Vaccine Deaths”
https://www.brighteon.com/ccf50c2e-080f-411b-b37b-849a7e819c17
This is an evil continuing experiment.
It is just the beginning. It is on a scale which surpasses what took place in the NAZI death camps.
The invocation of the term Nuremberg code is accurate and entirely appropriate to describe the indescribable abuse of medicine and science for profit and power currently under way.
If Mr Paxton is not aware that an experimental live trial is currently under way in the UK and the World he should be disabused of that view.
according to US CDC VAERS SYSTEM there are only 10,991 and 551,172 Injuries
according to EUDRA European Union’s Database of Adverse Drug Reactions for COVID-19 Shots – 17,503 DEAD, 1.7 Million Injured (50% SERIOUS) Reported.
The British government is soon to be the subject to prosecution for mass-murder
https://www.thebernician.net/pub-to-lay-charges-of-mass-murder-by-government-policy/
Reply
Artelia
| #
Surely the cowpox scabs mixed with boiled water and scratched into the skin were safe.
If vaccines are so unsafe, perhaps we should not use them.
Reply
Syrius33
| #
Voy a copiarles textualmente lo que dice el sitio de Moderna COVID-19 Vacuna de Estados Unidos, para los proveedores y los receptores de vacunas de EE.UU (mayúsculas fuera del texto): “LA VACUNA MODERNA COVID-19 NO HA SIDO APROBADA NI AUTORIZADA POR LA ADMINISTRACIÓN DE ALIMENTOS Y MEDICAMENTOS DE LOS EE.UU. (FDA), PERO HA SIDO AUTORIZADA PARA USO DE EMERGENCIA POR LA FDA , BAJO UNA AUTORIZACIÓN DE USO DE EMERGENCIA (EUA), PARA PREVENIR LA ENFERMEDAD POR CORONAVIRUS 2019 (COVID), PARA USO EN PERSONAS MAYORES DE 18 AÑOS. NO EXISTE UNA VACUNA APROBADA POR LA FDA PARA PREVENIR COVID-19.
EL EUA PARA LA VACUNA MODERNA COVID-19 ESTÁ EN VIGOR MIENTRAS DURE LA DECLARACIÓN COVID-19 EUA QUE JUSTIFICA EL USO DE EMERGENCIA DEL PRODUCTO, A MENOS QUE LA DECLARACIÓN FINALICE O LA AUTORIZACIÓN SE REVOQUE ANTES”.
De manera señores que ¿ cuál es el fundamento de la discusión suscitada acá?.
1. Falsa “pandemia” por CORONAVIRUS.
2. Falsas “vacunas” que tienen ARNm o Proteína pico de Adenovirus, cuando debieran contener Coronavirus, ya que es supuestamente tan abundante en el medio y está en todas partes (realmente los coronavirus humanos son muy difíciles de cultivar en laboratorios)
3. Se originan en una “emergencia” que no existe, porque los casos de covid son una manipulación estadística de la CIE-10
4. Son EXPERIMENTALES, porque así lo dicen los mismos instructivos de las sustancias.
5. Son “vacunas para coronavirus” QUE NO LO CONTIENEN, NO TE EVITAN ADQUIRIR EL CORONAVIRUS, TRANSMITIRLO, ENFERMAR Y MORIR POR CORONAVIRUS.
6. TODOS LOS “VACUNADOS” ENFERMAN Y SON COVID-19 POSITIVOS. ELLOS SON LA VERDADERA PANDEMIA.
7. Lo principal: ESTAS SUBSTANCIAS SON ILEGALES, DEBEN SER SUSPENDIDAS SUS INOCULACIONES Y RECOGIDOS TODOS LOS PRODUCTOS, porque su autorización se basa en una FALSEDAD MÉDICA: QUE NO HAY TRATAMIENTO PARA LA INFECCIÓN POR SARS-CoV-2, LO QUE NO ES CIERTO.: SIEMPRE HA SIDO LA IVERMECTINA.
Sí se ha violado el Código de Nuremberg, porque se le está aplicando a humanos SIN LAS PRUEBAS CIENTÍFICAS Y DE SEGURIDAD SUFICIENTES, A NIÑOS, MUJERES EMBARAZADAS, provocando muertes, abortos, partos prematuros. Y se está experimentado con menores de 1 año y niños hasta 17 años. Desde las primeras muertes, debieron detenerse las inoculaciones. PERO NADIE LO HA HECHO, COMO SI LA VIDA HUMANA NO VALIERA NADA.
Dejar enfermar la gente por no dar el medicamento correcto, existiendo, para justificar un negocio EXPERIMENTAL de vacunas, es un homicidio, es un DELITO DE LESA HUMANIDAD.
Reply
Phil Palij
| #
English Translation done with https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/translator
Comment from Syriuz33 above, you can get the gist of their argument but use your noodle.
I’m going to copy to you verbatim what the Moderna COVID-19 U.S. Vaccine site says, for U.S. vaccine providers and recipients. U.S. (capital letters out of text): “THE MODERN COVID-19 VACCINE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED OR AUTHORIZED BY THE U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA), BUT HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED FOR EMERGENCY USE BY THE FDA, UNDER AN EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (U.S.), TO PREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID), FOR USE IN PERSONS OVER THE AGE OF 18. THERE IS NO FDA-APPROVED VACCINE TO PREVENT COVID-19.
THE EUA FOR THE MODERN COVID-19 VACCINE IS IN EFFECT FOR THE DURATION OF THE U.S. COVID-19 DECLARATION THAT JUSTIFIES EMERGENCY USE OF THE PRODUCT, UNLESS THE DECLARATION ENDS OR THE AUTHORIZATION IS REVOKED EARLIER.”
So gentlemen, what is the basis of the discussion raised here?
Fake CORONAVIRUS “pandemic.”
Fake “vaccines” that have mRNA or Adenovirus spike protein, when they should contain Coronavirus, since it is supposedly so abundant in the middle and is everywhere (really human coronaviruses are very difficult to grow in laboratories)
They originate in an “emergency” that does not exist, because covid cases are a statistical manipulation of the ICD-10
They are EXPERIMENTAL, because so say the same instructions of the substances.
They are “coronavirus vaccines” THAT DO NOT CONTAIN IT, DO NOT PREVENT YOU FROM ACQUIRING THE CORONAVIRUS, TRANSMITTING IT, GETTING SICK AND DYING FROM CORONAVIRUS.
ALL “VACCINATED” GET SICK AND ARE COVID-19 POSITIVE. THEY ARE THE REAL PANDEMIC.
The main thing: THESE SUBSTANCES ARE ILLEGAL, THEIR INOCULATIONS MUST BE SUSPENDED AND ALL PRODUCTS COLLECTED, BECAUSE THEIR AUTHORIZATION IS BASED ON A MEDICAL FALSEHOOD: THAT THERE IS NO TREATMENT FOR INFECTION BY SARS-CoV-2, WHICH IS NOT TRUE.: IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN IVERMECTIN.
Yes, the Nuremberg Code has been violated, because it is being applied to humans WITHOUT SUFFICIENT SCIENTIFIC AND SAFETY EVIDENCE, TO CHILDREN, TO PREGNANT WOMEN, causing deaths, abortions, premature births. And it is being experimented with children under 1 year and children up to 17 years old. From the first deaths, inoculations had to be stopped. BUT NO ONE HAS DONE SO, AS IF HUMAN LIFE WERE WORTHLESS.
Letting people get sick for not giving the right medicine, existing, to justify an EXPERIMENTAL business of vaccines, is a homicide, it is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
Phil:
Muy bien Syrius33, Muchas Gracias
Reply