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

OP
tankasnowgod

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Why the Peat community would want to discredit and de-legitimitize it is baffling.
Discredit or delegitimize what? The OP states that no government or agency adopted the code.
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?
Nothing I said goes against the idea of "informed consent." It does, however, help to explain why governments and other organizations don't seem to care in the slightest about this concept.
Plus the AMA didn't want to recognize it; what's not to love?
So, the AMA is like every other government and organization in the planet in that respect.
 

daphne134

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
128
Discredit or delegitimize what? The OP states that no government or agency adopted the code.

Nothing I said goes against the idea of "informed consent." It does, however, help to explain why governments and other organizations don't seem to care in the slightest about this concept.

So, the AMA is like every other government and organization in the planet in that respect.
The passage I quote shows that it is (1) related to the Helsinki Declaration, together with which it's the; (2) precedent to the Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46, US HHS, which is the basis for; (3) Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), which are normative practice legitimizing research in over 80 countries; and the basis of (4) Article 7 of the UN 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (5) it's the prototype for the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects proposed by the WHO.

And it's shorthand in the public mind for "don't be a Mengele". Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a PhD and lawyer, is suing the CDC, WHO and Davis Group for crimes against humanity based on it. So it must have some legal basis. Yes, Israel's the worst violator - and its people the victims. As is happening in many other countries, US, Australia, Scotland, on and on. Have you seen Dr. Fuellmich's pandemic interviews and the symposium he did? He is very devoted to the cause of freedom. Arguing against it posits that all rightful power arbitrarily belongs to states, and negates the existence of natural human rights. And that doesn't in any way benefit the anti-mandatory-vaccine side (which I assume you're on, posting to a Peat board). I mean, you can stand on a little island with a sign yelling about informed consent while the waves lap up around you, or you can stand with the historical human rights work that has already been done and adopted by institutions worldwide. You are correct that governments are disregarding and trying to do away with it, but this is a new and unwelcome development.
 
Last edited:
OP
tankasnowgod

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
The passage I quote shows that it is (1) related to the Helsinki Declaration, together with which it's the; (2) precedent to the Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46, US HHS, which is the basis for; (3) Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), which are normative practice legitimizing research in over 80 countries; and the basis of (4) Article 7 of the UN 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (5) it's the prototype for the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects proposed by the WHO.
So what? That's not the actual code itself.

1. The Declaration of Helsinki is itself not law, nor adopted by any government. It is simply a declaration.
2. The Title 45 Code is far different and more complex. A brief look at it will confirm this- 2018 Requirements (2018 Common Rule)
3. "basis for" Institutional review boards doesn't mean it was adopted by any of them, nor that they themselves provide any good service. In the US, they fall under the FDA regulations, which doesn't instill me with confidence, nor make me think they are useful or necessary.
4. An "International Covenant" is also itself, not law or official code, and carries no penalties for it's violation.
5. "Prototype," again, doesn't mean it was adopted. And "Guidelines" also aren't laws or official code, and carry no penalties.

Sounds like Nuremberg Code generated a lot of paperwork and organizations, and didn't do much in the way of actually protecting people!
And it's shorthand in the public mind for "don't be a Mengele".
What does "shorthand in the public mind" even mean? The whole point of my original post was that it doesn't carry any weight legally, because it hasn't been adopted anywhere, nor comes with any sort of penalties. Unlike, say, traffic code, which routinely generates monetary penalties from drivers if they do something like blow through a red light.

Too bad the code also did nothing to protect against real monsters, like Dr. Ewen Cameron, nor real experimentation, like the Tuskegee experiments.

Also........ Neither the Nuremberg Trials nor The Doctors Trial (conducted exclusively by the United States) featured a defendant named Mengele.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a PhD and lawyer, is suing the CDC, WHO and Davis Group for crimes against humanity based on it. So it must have some legal basis.
Ha! A lawyer filing a lawsuit doesn't prove that something must have "some legal basis."

I'm not sure that the Nuremberg Code is the basis for Fuellmich's lawsuit. I haven't read his filings, guessing you haven't either, so I can't comment further. I hope it's based on something more solid, personally.
Arguing against it posits that all rightful power arbitrarily belongs to states, and negates the existence of natural human rights.
Arguing against what? The Nuremberg Code?

I don't think arguing against unadopted Code from the most ridiculous Kangaroo Court in history posits that all rightful power arbitrarily belongs to states. I live in the union of the several states, and the Constitution for The United States of America rebuts that very idea, and it's still in use to this very day. And the 9th and 10th Amendment make if VERY clear that rights are reserved to the people, if they weren't expressly delegated to the Federal Government, or the several states.
 
Last edited:

PolishSun

Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
447
Maybe experimental jabs are in the category of things, that are not regulated by law yet?
 
L

Lord Cola

Guest
Using the Nuremberg Code in an argument about the covid vax doesn't add anything impactful to the argument. It's much better to talk about the issues specifically related to the vax, studies, statistics, financial interests behind the vax, etc. Talking about the Nuremberg Code will just make you look like a middle aged Christian conservative right winger to the liberals you're arguing with and therefore your opinions automatically become conspiracy theory and don't count. And these liberals NEED to be convinced that they're being lied to, if anything meaningful is to be done about this covid situation.
 

ddjd

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
6,667
1630668583886.png
 
OP
tankasnowgod

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Maybe experimental jabs are in the category of things, that are not regulated by law yet?

This is a bizarre thought. Of course they are regulated by law. At least, their use, possession, and sale is.

Anyone receiving one of the so called "vaccines" has to sign a consent form. This is under Contract Law, and itself should be ample evidence of informed consent in the vast majority of cases-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGiPdTMC9kg


Also, since these drugs are travelling in interstate commerce, Congress has the right to regulate them, and they've delegated that power to the FDA in this matter. The FDA has authorized their use under EUA. If they hadn't, you would have seen the DEA or a similar agency busting the Mega-Vax sites, raiding Pfizer and Moderna, and arresting doctors and nurses pushing this on their patients, and likely stripping them of their license.

And long before Covid was ever a thing, the FDA had set up rules and regulations regarding experimental drugs, including vaccines.
 

PolishSun

Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
447
But the use of experimental vaccines on children is not regulated, right? Because it is just common sense, that children shouldn't get those, and still they are being pushed to get the experimental vaccines in most countries. That means here are no laws against that.
 
OP
tankasnowgod

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
But the use of experimental vaccines on children is not regulated, right? Because it is just common sense, that children shouldn't get those, and still they are being pushed to get the experimental vaccines in most countries. That means here are no laws against that.
Sure, it's regulated, and yes, there are laws (or maybe more accurately, enforced codes and statues and such). "Common sense" is a colloquial term, isn't in a Black's Law Dictionary, and itself has no basis in law.

No government agency is just randomly injecting children with experimental vaccines (though there may be some corrupt officials doing this, and they are putting themselves at legal risk by doing so). They are still getting consent, this time from the parents. Or, by targeting children that are old enough to give consent, and then using the same tactics on them that they are using on adults..

You may be ignorant of the laws, or not like what they say, but they are still there. I'm sure if you read a story about some child getting one of these EUA "vaccines," you will find that the parents enrolled them in a trial or something similar.
 

PolishSun

Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
447
I just thought if the parents would give a consent to shoot the child it would have no power. So the same with experimental medicines. Some things cannot be done under parents consent.
 

J.R.K

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
1,836
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.

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.
Thank you for these insights Tanksasnowgod, I appreciate your candour on the matter. You are correct that the government has the right to regulate a business and how it relates to its customers for public health reasons, and the irony is not lost upon me that the main focus is upon the hospitals not being overrun and resources stretched to the breaking point, all the while showing the gene therapies as the only thing protecting us from certain death and after effects of the delta variant.
I forget my place sometimes that I remain in the now eighteen percent control group of my province. If we look at Israel’s high vaccination rates and the percentage of those double jabbed and those unvaccinated one report says sixty percent and forty percent respectively, with Israel warning other countries not to open up to quickly. I get an eerie feeling about this, and perhaps the vaccine passports will show how effective the gene therapies really are, while the unvaccinated are held outside this part of the experiment.

On a side note to follow your statement,”you have to understand where they are coming from”, I do wish that I had a better understanding of how the hierarchy of these decisions are made and the chain of command to execute them.
I have had a thought and it has been rolling around in my head for awhile now and I would value your thoughts on how insane it might be.
What if this whole handling of this pandemic was to make public health look so incompetent and set them up to be so despised by us regular plebes, that we turn our backs upon the medical system and in our anger we accept a new form of medical system where we just turn to our phone for an answer, not necessarily AI.but something along those tele or internet health lines?
Sounds nuts I know and I have absolutely no proof to back this up other than this recurring thought and Georgi joking about it with Danny a couple times.
 

daphne134

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
128
So what? That's not the actual code itself.

1. The Declaration of Helsinki is itself not law, nor adopted by any government. It is simply a declaration.
2. The Title 45 Code is far different and more complex. A brief look at it will confirm this- 2018 Requirements (2018 Common Rule)
3. "basis for" Institutional review boards doesn't mean it was adopted by any of them, nor that they themselves provide any good service. In the US, they fall under the FDA regulations, which doesn't instill me with confidence, nor make me think they are useful or necessary.
4. An "International Covenant" is also itself, not law or official code, and carries no penalties for it's violation.
5. "Prototype," again, doesn't mean it was adopted. And "Guidelines" also aren't laws or official code, and carry no penalties.

Sounds like Nuremberg Code generated a lot of paperwork and organizations, and didn't do much in the way of actually protecting people!

What does "shorthand in the public mind" even mean? The whole point of my original post was that it doesn't carry any weight legally, because it hasn't been adopted anywhere, nor comes with any sort of penalties. Unlike, say, traffic code, which routinely generates monetary penalties from drivers if they do something like blow through a red light.

Too bad the code also did nothing to protect against real monsters, like Dr. Ewen Cameron, nor real experimentation, like the Tuskegee experiments.

Also........ Neither the Nuremberg Trials nor The Doctors Trial (conducted exclusively by the United States) featured a defendant named Mengele.

Ha! A lawyer filing a lawsuit doesn't prove that something must have "some legal basis."

I'm not sure that the Nuremberg Code is the basis for Fuellmich's lawsuit. I haven't read his filings, guessing you haven't either, so I can't comment further. I hope it's based on something more solid, personally.

Arguing against what? The Nuremberg Code?

I don't think arguing against unadopted Code from the most ridiculous Kangaroo Court in history posits that all rightful power arbitrarily belongs to states. I live in the union of the several states, and the Constitution for The United States of America rebuts that very idea, and it's still in use to this very day. And the 9th and 10th Amendment make if VERY clear that rights are reserved to the people, if they weren't expressly delegated to the Federal Government, or the several states.

Again, by ranting against the Nuremberg Code you're arguing against a body of human rights work that has already been accomplished and adopted by institutions worldwide. You're putting all moral authority in the hands of states no matter what they do. I can't help but wonder if you actually oppose informed consent, since you're so vehement against the origins of that concept which you say (or rather, imply) you're in favor of.

And the fact that you dismiss Fuellmich's work out of hand when he's done so much, just because he's bringing a lawsuit based on the NC, is further evidence you're not really on the side of health freedom.

What's next, dismissing Del Bigree because he had Dr. Zalenko on his show?

Here's an article about how the Nuremberg Code is relevant to the Covid vaccination program. Please do let us know if you have a better / more relevant document to serve as precedent in opposition to what's happening. Nullifying Nuremberg
 
Last edited:
OP
tankasnowgod

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Again, by ranting against the Nuremberg Code you're arguing against a body of human rights work that has already been accomplished and adopted by institutions worldwide.
Lol, except it hasn't. And you can't even name one to prove that statement wrong.
You're putting all moral authority in the hands of states no matter what they do.
Ridiculous. I think only people have moral authority, not legal fictions like states, and certainly not Kangaroo Courts like Nuremberg. I made the opposite VERY clear, especially by bringing up the 9th and 10th Amendment. Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it.
I can't help but wonder if you actually oppose informed consent, since you're so vehement against the origins of that concept which you say (or rather, imply) you're in favor of.
No, I don't. I think "Informed Consent" is important. But the unadopted Nuremberg Codes don't have a monopoly on "Informed Consent." In medicine, it's thought to date back to Hippocrates. It's defined in a Black's Law Dictionary, and I would think that would be a better resource than unadopted code.

I actually posted about the Consent forms that come with the so called "Vaccines." They are supposed to get a signed copy from anyone taking them. I don't know if there is better evidence of "Informed Consent" than a mutually agreed upon written contract-

And the fact that you dismiss Fuellmich's work out of hand when he's done so much,
I didn't dismiss any of his work. Go re-read my comment. Although, granted, I did pretty much dismiss your interpretation of his work out of hand. Big difference.
just because he's bringing a lawsuit based on the NC, is further evidence you're not really on the side of health freedom.
Again, Ridiculous. You want evidence I'm on the side of health freedom? How about the fact I was challenging the idea of lockdowns back in March of 2020?

What's next, dismissing Del Bigree because he had Dr. Zalenko on his show?
Strawman Argument. I think everything and everyone should be judged on their own merits.
Here's an article about how the Nuremberg Code is relevant to the Covid vaccination program. Please do let us know if you have a better / more relevant document to serve as precedent in opposition to what's happening. Nullifying Nuremberg
In answer to the last question of the article "Are we nullifying the Nuremberg Code?" the answer is no, because there is nothing to nullify, because it wasn't adopted by any government in the first place. It didn't really have any value Pre-Covid, and it's value has not changed. And I have continued to mention the experiments that it did nothing to prevent or stop in the US (including mind control and radiation experiments, and the Tuskegee experiments) all throughout this thread.
 

Lejeboca

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,039
Currently the ethical perspective under which they justify it is "benefits outweigh the risks".

How about a legal maxim: Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit (see, e.g., Maxims of Law)
Can be successfully used in any US court contrary to the Nuremberg code :cool:
 
OP
tankasnowgod

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
How about a legal maxim: Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit (see, e.g., Maxims of Law)
Can be successfully used in any US court contrary to the Nuremberg code:cool:
I think it's the Maxim right above that one that's getting everyone in trouble in the first place....

"Favors from government often carry with them an enhanced measure of regulation."
 

PolishSun

Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
447
if I understand psychopaths good enough, their goal is to achieve that " the hospitals are overrun and resources stretched to the breaking point". They are reasoning the opposite in order to give gene jabs. They usually turn things upside down. If you listen to them, and convert to opposite what they say, then you might get an insight.
 

Lejeboca

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,039
I think it's the Maxim right above that one that's getting everyone in trouble in the first place....

"Favors from government often carry with them an enhanced measure of regulation."

Yep. The problem/trouble is followed by a solution (maxim) :stickwhack
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom