The Nuremberg Code- Not law, not adopted, no penalties for violation.

[tankasnowgod]

Ever since the start of this COVID nonsense, I have heard a number of people and sources bring up the Nuremberg Code, and suggest that there are all sorts of violations of this code going on. From Lockdowns to Mask Mandates, and especially the rollout of the alleged "Vaccines," I have heard many convincing cases that these are "Medical Experiments," and are in violation of the Nuremberg Code. If you read the ten points of the code, it's not hard to make a case for violations.

But, I was just wondering.... codes that have been adopted by governments, agencies and other organizations usually carry penalties for violation. Sooooo.... what are the penalties for violating the Nuremberg Code?

The answer? None. The reason for that is simple, and I'll link the Wikipedia page-

Nuremberg Code - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Code has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association. In fact, the Code's reference to Hippocratic duty to the individual patient and the need to provide information was not initially favored by the American Medical Association.[14] Katz observes that the Western world initially dismissed the Nuremberg Code as a "code for barbarians, but unnecessary (or superfluous) for ordinary physicians."[1][15] Additionally, the final judgment did not specify whether the Code should be applied to cases such as political prisoners, convicted felons, and healthy volunteers.[citation needed] The lack of clarity, the brutality of the unethical medical experiments, and the uncompromising language of the Code created an image that it was designed for singularly egregious transgressions.[1]

No one adopted it, so there CAN'T be any penalties. If you roll through a stop sign while driving, you face a bigger penalty (probably in the form of a fine) than you would for violating the Nuremberg Code.

This also makes some sense. When the Nuremberg Codes were issued, the US was in the middle of the Tuskegee experiments, which clearly violate the code. The US was also ramping up for (or already conducting) various mind control and radiation experiments, which would also have been egregious violations of the code. But, seeing as the codes were never adopted by the US or any state in the union, or any organization that the US may have a treaty with..... violations wouldn't be of any concern. It's not like they even carried a nominal penalty of $5,00.

So, if you've been wondering why governments, companies, and other organizations haven't been worried about violating the Nuremberg Code over the past year and a half, you now have your answer.

 

[Lejeboca]

So, if you've been wondering why governments, companies, and other organizations haven't been worried about violating the Nuremberg Code over the past year and a half, you now have your answer.

There is even more straightforward answer. None of the courts where you might file anything pertaining to you personally (e.g., a circuit court, district court, or even Supreme Court) have an nternational jurisdiction, so they wouldn't consider Nuremberg Code, regardless of its adoption by the US.

 

[tankasnowgod]

There is even more straightforward answer. None of the courts where you might file anything pertaining to you personally (e.g., a circuit court, district court, or even Supreme Court) have an nternational jurisdiction, so they wouldn't consider Nuremberg Code, regardless of its adoption by the US.

True, the Nuremberg Court didn't have any pre-existing authority to begin with. It's basically the dictionary definition of a Kangaroo Court.

 

[Ben.]

That is true and i wouldn't base any legal actions on it. It should however make people even more careful and sceptic towards thoose excercising medical treatments.

Why put your life and health into the hands of thoose not living/practising by certain ethic and moral standards? Or let them do things they are not being liable for?
It also does not help if they can just call out a emergency state to push their product under false pretense.

Missing or underdeveloped laws do not justify whats going on at the moment. Currently the ethical perspective under which they justify it is "benefits outweigh the risks".

 

[tankasnowgod]

Missing or underdeveloped laws do not justify whats going on at the moment. Currently the ethical perspective under which they justify it is "benefits outweigh the risks".

Agree, it still doesn't justify it. But, it does help to explain why governments don't care in the slightest about it.

But again, this isn't new. Dr. Ewen Cameron was present at the Nuremberg Trials, and testified for the Allies (and was responsible for "evaluating" Rudolph Hess), and despite the "Nuremberg Code," had no problems committing egregious violations of it by the 1950's, as this clip from The Fifth Estate demonstrates-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNPTLKzqjuM&t=190s

 

[Ben.]

Agree, it still doesn't justify it. But, it does help to explain why governments don't care in the slightest about it.

But again, this isn't new. Dr. Ewen Cameron was present at the Nuremberg Trials, and testified for the Allies (and was responsible for "evaluating" Rudolph Hess), and despite the "Nuremberg Code," had no problems committing egregious violations of it by the 1950's, as this clip from The Fifth Estate demonstrates-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNPTLKzqjuM&t=190s

Yes, its good that you highlight this with the thread. Thanks for that.

 

[PolishSun]

Nuremberg Code and other documents like constitutions looks like a psychopathic trick to make people believe that they are safe and protected. And those laws do not work in practice when some higher power structures want to achieve their goals. The same with promises for pensions, or licensing half of the professions and making education so expensive that people start waiting for Universal Base Payments from government. They wouldn't want those if the system wouldn't be so complicated, and I think it is on purpose so. It was much easier to buy a house 70 years ago. It costed like the salary of one year. I really think it is done this way on purpose. It is easier to rule people without money, who are stressed and with weakened health.

 

[Fred]

Governments can violate or create any law so long as people think the government is legitimate and necessary. It's a cult.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Nuremberg Code and other documents like constitutions looks like a psychopathic trick to make people believe that they are safe and protected. And those laws do not work in practice when some higher power structures want to achieve their goals.

I don't believe this. The Nuremberg Code was never adopted by anyone, so it really doesn't have any power. If you look at The Constitution for the United States of America, it does have power, and it is still working to this very day. I don't know why the Constitution would make people feel "safe" and "protected." What it did was constitute the Federal Government. It helped to put limits on that very same government, and might be the best example so far of "separation of powers."

In America, the people are sovereign, and supposed to protect themselves. I don't even think the Founders thought a piece of paper with words on it could make people "safe," even though they understood the power of trust documents. The Bill of Rights added a layer of protection, but they recognized that all rights and freedoms come from the Creator, not another man, not a document, and not a man made structure like government.

 

[PolishSun]

anyone with a gun can rob you of most of your rights

 

[tankasnowgod]

anyone with a gun can rob you of most of your rights

Not if you also have a gun to protect yourself. Which was the reason for the 2nd Amendment..... for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

 

[J.R.K]

Not if you also have a gun to protect yourself. Which was the reason for the 2nd Amendment..... for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

I am somewhat disappointed that the Nuremberg code is not actually a practice that has the law behind it to enforce it.
That being said I am also not shocked or terribly surprised, I have developed a saying in my fifty plus years sojourn here below,” we all live by the golden rule the ones that have all the gold do all the ruling”.
I am curious on you gun comment @tankasnowgod, since we seem to be more and more polarized on this gene therapy issue and since the chance for a legal outcome favourable to the unvaccinated seems to hang in the balance and is tipped one way or another from day to day or even hour by hour. Do you feel that an armed conflict is a real possibility?
Will this devolve to the point where a blood sacrifice through violence is required in order to restore us to a point where logical and calm talking can be restored and a peaceful outcome for all after the bloodshed?

 

[Kozak]

Ever since the start of this COVID nonsense, I have heard a number of people and sources bring up the Nuremberg Code, and suggest that there are all sorts of violations of this code going on. From Lockdowns to Mask Mandates, and especially the rollout of the alleged "Vaccines," I have heard many convincing cases that these are "Medical Experiments," and are in violation of the Nuremberg Code. If you read the ten points of the code, it's not hard to make a case for violations.

But, I was just wondering.... codes that have been adopted by governments, agencies and other organizations usually carry penalties for violation. Sooooo.... what are the penalties for violating the Nuremberg Code?

The answer? None. The reason for that is simple, and I'll link the Wikipedia page-

Nuremberg Code - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No one adopted it, so there CAN'T be any penalties. If you roll through a stop sign while driving, you face a bigger penalty (probably in the form of a fine) than you would for violating the Nuremberg Code.

This also makes some sense. When the Nuremberg Codes were issued, the US was in the middle of the Tuskegee experiments, which clearly violate the code. The US was also ramping up for (or already conducting) various mind control and radiation experiments, which would also have been egregious violations of the code. But, seeing as the codes were never adopted by the US or any state in the union, or any organization that the US may have a treaty with..... violations wouldn't be of any concern. It's not like they even carried a nominal penalty of $5,00.

So, if you've been wondering why governments, companies, and other organizations haven't been worried about violating the Nuremberg Code over the past year and a half, you now have your answer.

I would not trust wiki at all.
I'm not a lawyer but it looks to me that for the Nuremberg trials to start, countries taking part in it had to agree to recognize its decisions or rulings (to legitimize the tribunal). So basically by starting the trial they adopted the outcome. This is a matter for the Supreme or Constitutional court.
There are no penalties in this because there are no defendants. It's all about laws. If the law is legal or not, because all the nazi war criminals were using "I just followed the law" defense. If the law breaches the NC it's illegal and all who followed it are criminals.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I would not trust wiki at all.

I do tend to trust them for things that are "mainstream" knowledge. If you do know of a country or organization that has adopted the Code, please share.

I'm not a lawyer but it looks to me that for the Nuremberg trials to start, countries taking part in it had to agree to recognize its decisions or rulings (to legitimize the tribunal). So basically by starting the trial they adopted the outcome. This is a matter for the Supreme or Constitutional court.

For the Nuremberg Trials to start, all that was needed was for the countries that won World War II to decide to put the loser on trial, and then acted as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. There were plenty of neutral countries in WWII, if they wanted to seem neutral, why not ask China, Canada, Turkey, and Argentina to sit in judgement? Or Australia, Egypt, Palestine, Brazil...... or pick your own favorite neutral countries. Amazing that it was only the US, UK, France, and Soviet Union that were judges huh?

There are no penalties in this because there are no defendants. It's all about laws. If the law is legal or not, because all the nazi war criminals were using "I just followed the law" defense. If the law breaches the NC it's illegal and all who followed it are criminals.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I am curious on you gun comment @tankasnowgod, since we seem to be more and more polarized on this gene therapy issue and since the chance for a legal outcome favourable to the unvaccinated seems to hang in the balance and is tipped one way or another from day to day or even hour by hour. Do you feel that an armed conflict is a real possibility?

No. What do you mean "legal outcome favourable to the unvaccinated?" In the US, every single thing to try and get you take to the vaccine is either fear based, or commercial in nature. There is no real threat to anyone forcing you to take an injection. It's all coercing through commercial means. There is no "right" to go to a gym or restaurant, not in the constitution, and not granted to you by the creator of the boundless universe.

If people start withholding their money from businesses with the most draconian vaccine policies, they will all fold. That's why the Montgomery Bus Boycott was the most effective thing in the whole civil rights movement. These entities want your money, and if you stop spending it with them, they start to starve.

Will this devolve to the point where a blood sacrifice through violence is required in order to restore us to a point where logical and calm talking can be restored and a peaceful outcome for all after the bloodshed?

Well, for that to happen, people need to stand up for their rights first (and truly, understand what their rights are), and they can do that without violence.

 

[J.R.K]

No. What do you mean "legal outcome favourable to the unvaccinated?" In the US, every single thing to try and get you take to the vaccine is either fear based, or commercial in nature. There is no real threat to anyone forcing you to take an injection. It's all coercing through commercial means. There is no "right" to go to a gym or restaurant, not in the constitution, and not granted to you by the creator of the boundless universe.

If people start withholding their money from businesses with the most draconian vaccine policies, they will all fold. That's why the Montgomery Bus Boycott was the most effective thing in the whole civil rights movement. These entities want your money, and if you stop spending it with them, they start to starve.

Well, for that to happen, people need to stand up for their rights first (and truly, understand what their rights are), and they can do that without violence.

Thank you for your insights @tankasnowgod ! My concern regarding,”a legal outcome favourable to the unvaccinated” has more to do with a possibility that the depth of corruption that has infiltrated public health and the political realms that are running this current circus, may have also infiltrated the courts systems and might uphold the vaccine passport agenda which in my opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the health, safety or bio security of the population. This gives you an indication of the degree of progression we are are at as of today in the march towards totalitarianism:

Ontario reveals vaccine passport system for restaurants, gyms and theatres. Here's what you need to know

Proof of COVID-19 vaccination will be required to access non-essential businesses in Ontario, including gyms, indoor restaurants, movie theatres and concert halls, under the province's new vaccine certification program starting Sept. 22.

beta.ctvnews.ca

When the reality of the scenario I feel is really :

Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished

A new study on Israel's COVID outbreak found that vaccinated individuals had 27 times higher risk of symptomatic COVID infection than those with natural immunity from prior COVID infection.

fee.org

This will be challenged in the court systems at some point in time, but if the court system is a part of the governments one hand washing the other scenario this could become along with the vaccine mandates a change in our laws regarding rights and freedoms, thus completing the circuit for a totalitarian society. I do not believe this will happen, as we have seen places like Denmark and Spain overturn the constitutional legality of this platform but I think that it is something that could become a dangerous possibility for the future, based solely upon the level of corruption in government and the complacency of the people.
For certain though the businesses will be affected that are mandated to do these measures, the only wild card we have is the level of compliance of the people. We need a strong resistance and response of non compliance in order to send the message in spades.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Thank you for your insights @tankasnowgod ! My concern regarding,”a legal outcome favourable to the unvaccinated” has more to do with a possibility that the depth of corruption that has infiltrated public health and the political realms that are running this current circus, may have also infiltrated the courts systems and might uphold the vaccine passport agenda which in my opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the health, safety or bio security of the population.

While I agree that it doesn't have anything to do with health, I think you have to get clear on how the courts might decide on various "vaccine passports." It might depend on a number of factors, from who or what is bringing the case, to what basis they are bringing the case on.

This gives you an indication of the degree of progression we are are at as of today in the march towards totalitarianism:

Ontario reveals vaccine passport system for restaurants, gyms and theatres. Here's what you need to know

Proof of COVID-19 vaccination will be required to access non-essential businesses in Ontario, including gyms, indoor restaurants, movie theatres and concert halls, under the province's new vaccine certification program starting Sept. 22.

beta.ctvnews.ca

When the reality of the scenario I feel is really :

Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished

A new study on Israel's COVID outbreak found that vaccinated individuals had 27 times higher risk of symptomatic COVID infection than those with natural immunity from prior COVID infection.

fee.org

This will be challenged in the court systems at some point in time, but if the court system is a part of the governments one hand washing the other scenario this could become along with the vaccine mandates a change in our laws regarding rights and freedoms, thus completing the circuit for a totalitarian society.

Well, you are certainly confusing many issues. Is it "totalitarian" for governments to require a business have a liquor license? Or to have an age limit on who can purchase tobacco? Again, the example you give above is a government regulating a business, and then later you pivot to claims about "rights and freedoms." Only people have rights and freedoms, not businesses. Governments can (and do) regulate businesses in all sorts of ways. I think it would be largely up to businesses to challenge the idea that they need to enforce vaccine mandates, whether on their employees or customers.

If a business requires some sort of proof of vaccine status completely voluntarily, it may be another issue. Again, I am not a fan of these ideas, nor where it is going, but to fight against them, you have to understand where they are coming from.

 

[Kozak]

I do tend to trust them for things that are "mainstream" knowledge. If you do know of a country or organization that has adopted the Code, please share.

For the Nuremberg Trials to start, all that was needed was for the countries that won World War II to decide to put the loser on trial, and then acted as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. There were plenty of neutral countries in WWII, if they wanted to seem neutral, why not ask China, Canada, Turkey, and Argentina to sit in judgement? Or Australia, Egypt, Palestine, Brazil...... or pick your own favorite neutral countries. Amazing that it was only the US, UK, France, and Soviet Union that were judges huh?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

This is specific to vax agenda - wiki can not be trusted on that.

For the trial to start there had to be a legal base - a treaty of sort was signed by US UK France USSR. When they signed it - they accepted the results (agreed they can be applied to them). Plus those countries that accepted the ICC (built on UN codes which I'm sure incorporates NC).

NC like a Constitution (framework) - there are no penalties in Constitutions, does not mean it can be broken. Question of legitimacy.

 

[daphne134]

Why the Peat community would want to discredit and de-legitimitize it is baffling. It's one of the most important precedents we bodily autonomy believers have. Do you all really want to remove the idea of informed consent from the human lexicon? Plus the AMA didn't want to recognize it; what's not to love?

From Wikipedia, which isn't all bad:
The Code has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association. In fact, the Code's reference to Hippocratic duty to the individual patient and the need to provide information was not initially favored by the American Medical Association. Katz observes that the Western world initially dismissed the Nuremberg Code as a "code for barbarians, but unnecessary (or superfluous) for ordinary physicians." Additionally, the final judgment did not specify whether the Code should be applied to cases such as political prisoners, convicted felons, and healthy volunteers. The lack of clarity, the brutality of the unethical medical experiments, and the uncompromising language of the Code created an image that it was designed for singularly egregious transgressions. However, the Code is considered by some to be the most important document in the history of clinical research ethics, which had a massive influence on global human rights. In America, the Code and the related Declaration of Helsinki form the basis for the Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46, which are the regulations issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for the ethical treatment of human subjects, and are used in Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the United Nations, and supposed to be in force by 23 March 1976. Article seven prohibits experiments conducted without the "free consent to medical or scientific experimentation" of the subject. The Covenant has 173 states parties as of September 2019. In his 2014 review, Gaw observes that the Code "not only entered the legal landscape, but also became the prototype for all future codes of ethical practice across the globe." The idea of free or informed consent also served as the basis for International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects proposed by the World Health Organization. Another notable symposium review was published by the Medical University of Vienna in 2017: "Medical Ethics in the 70 Years after the Nuremberg Code, 1947 to the Present". President and Rector Markus Muller writes in his introduction that the Code "constitutes one of the most important milestones in the history of medicine, providing for the first time a proper framework for research on human subjects. Sadly, this milestone was not a voluntary, precautionary measure resulting from enlightened humanity, it only came into existence in the aftermath of dreadful Nazi atrocities. Following its conception, the Nuremberg Code bore rich fruit in multiple legal regards, becoming a cornerstone of clinical research and bioethics."

 

[jnklheimer]

Why the Peat community would want to discredit and de-legitimitize it is baffling. It's one of the most important precedents we bodily autonomy believers have. Do you all really want to remove the idea of informed consent from the human lexicon? Plus the AMA didn't want to recognize it; what's not to love?

Multiple people have admitted to taking the "vaccine" even though they say they know it wasn't a good idea. I think people are getting demoralized in a way they couldn't have expected. I've dealt with major demoralization before so I am blessed and know how to handle it. Many others aren't and just want to go back to normal.

The entire existence of western societies in modern day is built out of the WW2 narrative. On one hand I realize that it's simply some rules written by the victors of that war, but also I think we might as well use it to our advantage to protect ourselves since this whole society is so insistent on referencing how evil Germans of that time were. I roll my eyes at some of the comparisons but we are sort of reaching survival mode here so I'll take it. Why not use their own tools against them? The allies being the good guys is pretty much sacred in western culture, it is going to take a lot of logical imbalances for the media apparatus to continue to try to reason away why nurumberg doesnt apply. There's articles of them trying but they'll probably fail spectacularly.