You are here

Home

Preparing for a Nuremberg-style defence?


Crafting an Exit Strategy from Universal Vaccination Failure (Part #9)

[Parts: First | Prev | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Memetic disease? In the probable event of the failure of the universal vaccination strategy, there is a need to benefit from historical insights into analogous situations in the past. Any such comparison requires recognition of the extent to which a dominant narrative finally proved inadequate to the challenge for which it was elaborated. This shifts the focus from specific challenges to the memetic framing of such challenges. In that light the pandemic can be understood as a memetic disease, as argued separately (COVID-19 as a Memetic Disease -- an epidemic of panic: learning from terrorism, communism. fascism, and evil, as pandemics of the past, 2020).

Recognition of falsehoods and ignorance: It is variously alleged that the pandemic has engendered a "pandemic" of misinformation. The future may be able to determine how such misinformation is to be distinguished from what is indicated in the following:

Remedial processes? The seeming inadequacies of the items above (as credible sources of truth) highlight the dramatic role of whistleblowers, and the controversies surrounding suppression of that function. Arguably recourse to legal proceedings with respect to controversies regarding truth and truth-telling can be seen as a means of eliciting truth. Examples have ranged from the International War Crimes Tribunal ("Russell Tribunals"), to the role of the International Court of Justice, and to "truth commissions" ("truth and reconciliation" commissions). The constraints on the efficacy of their operation can however be considered a constraint on eliciting truth -- potentially in contrast to any subjective sense of poetic justice or its desirability.

Nuremberg Code: There is an emerging legal effort to recognize that vaccination, as promoted by the universal vaccination strategy, can be interpreted as having been specifically condemned by the Nuremberg Code (1947), namely a set of research ethics principles against experimentation on humans. This is understoof as deriving from initiatives by German physicians in the mid-1920s as proponents of racial hygiene as supported by the German government in order to promote an Aryan race. Racial hygiene extremists merged with National Socialism to promote the use of biology to accomplish their goals of racial purity, a core concept in the Nationalist ideology. By 1942, the Nazi party included more than 38,000 German physicians, who helped carry out medical programs such as the Sterilization Law. 

Emerging as a consequence of World War II, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, notably prosecuted doctors and administrators for their roles in conducting inhumane and unethical human experiments in concentration camps, in addition to those who were involved in over 3,500,000 sterilizations of German citizens. The trials clarified the definition of "Permissible Medical Experiments" in what became known as the Nuremberg Code. This includes such principles as informed consent and absence of coercion; properly formulated scientific experimentation; and beneficence towards experiment participants. It is thought to have been mainly based on the Hippocratic Oath, which was interpreted as endorsing the experimental approach to medicine while protecting the patient.

Identification of ultimate responsibility for the experimental initiatives of agents of the German government now recalls the dilemmas associated with the primary defence of Adolf Eichman. Termed superior orders, but also known as the Nuremberg defense (or "just following orders"), is a plea in a court of law that a person, whether a member of the military, law enforcement, a firefighting force, or the civilian population, should not be considered guilty of committing actions that were ordered by a superior officer or official.

A current example is now offered by the trial of those held responsible for the Volkswagen emissions scandal (Dieselgate):

According to previewed court documents, all of the defendants will testify that they had either passed on their knowledge of the manipulations to their superiors and therefore cannot be held responsible, or that they didn't know anything at all about the wrongdoings (German Dieselgate trial begins without ex-VW boss Martin Winterkorn, DW, 16 September 2021).

Government officials at the highest level -- including the leadership -- make similar claims. It is of course necessarily the case that health experts derive their authority from models that have been developed with the assistance of AI. It is then appropriate to ask at what point those in authority cease to be agents of a higher authority and can acknowledge their responsibility in ordering the implementation of the pandemic response strategy. Clearly the matter is rendered more complex when reference is made to a model as the ultimate authority -- thereby transforming the health experts themselves into agents for the interpretation of the insights seemingly offered by the model.

Permissible Medical Experiments: As detailed in the Nuremberg Code, these include [with appended comments in italics of relevance to the universal vaccination strategy]:

  1. 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.

    [Framed as the necessity for "informed consent", a trial would necessarily focus on whether this has been possible  when any critical questions and presentation of alternatives have been deliberately and systematically suppressed by conflating them with misinformation in conformity with the requirements of the mainstream narrative promoted by the strategy. The requirement for "voluntary consent" will be challenged by the widespread use of "mandatory" vaccination under duress.

    Discussion will presumably draw on the clarification offered by the Declaration of Helsinki as a set of ethical principles regarding human experimentation, as developed originally in 1964 and subsequently revised, with a particular focus on informed consent (Articles 20, 21 and 22). Especially intriguing will be legal clarification of the extent to which provision of unreadable "small print" clarification of warnings and counter-indications on vaccine phials (or associated inserts) relate to the "spirit" of "informed", or only to the "letter" -- especially when these are only provided in a very limited number of languages.

    Such questions will become all the more complex with the requirement to vaccinate children of an ever younger age -- clearly unable to be appropriately informed or to express their consent. This is equally the case with the illiterate and the senile.]

  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

    [Primary attention will necessarily be given to whether "experiment" includes or excludes "vaccination", and to what extent the vaccines are themselves experimental. Clearly the defence will emphasize "results for the good of society" but will need to justify "unprocurable by other means" given the systemtic suppression of information in that regard]

  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

    [Given the conventional ethics governing the inhumane treatment of laboratory animals, this point will tend to be considered irrelevant to any Nuremberg-style trial, despite some sensitivity to the "collateral damage" associated with the millions of animals sacrificed in the development of vaccines for the benefit of humanity. A trial would clarify the extent to which the methodology of vaccine development has involved the treatment of humans as "experimental guinea pigs", whilst curiously recommending the progressive elimination of "experimental controls" through the process of universal vaccination. The fact that the Nuremberg Code arose from the massive treatment of humans as animals suggests that the issue may be reframed by the future. These points can be speculatively explored (Anticipation of Judicial Inquisition of Humans by Extraterrestrials, 2021; Controls and Guinea Pigs in the Pandemic Experiment: honouring the sacrifice of vaccine refuseniks for the wider community, 2021).]

  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

    [The defence will necessarily be challenged to justify the recorded number of vaccine adverse events associated with the universal vaccination strategy, and the level of mental suffeing and injury to which that strategy has given rise]

  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

    [Given the number of death or injuries in the course of deployment of the universal vaccination strategy -- asserted to be both rare and tolerable -- the defence will be challenged to respond to this consideration. Clearly hard evidence could be sought on the extent to which the physicians in question have in reality submitted themselves to those same vaccines to which others have been subjected.]

  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

    [Presumably this will be debated as a matter of opinion beyond clear resolution]

  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

    [Clearly many instances will be cited where these provisions have not been met]

  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

    [Understood as an experiment, are those conducting the universal vaccination strategy to be deemed "scientifically qualified"? How does the "highest degree of skill" apply, given the documented challenges to front-line health personnel?]

  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

    [Is there any evidence of this condition being respected, especially when vaccination is deemed mandatory?]

  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

    [Is there any evidence of this condition being respected, especially when vaccination is deemed mandatory? Given the lack of transparency in the deployment of the strategy, who indeed is to be understood as the "scientist in charge" and has the possibility of terminating the strategy even been subject to qualified debate?]

The relevance to any trial of the claims and denials (noted below) with respect to the case of universal vaccination would seem to turn on legal interpretation of whether the above Code applies to "experimentation" (but not "vaccination" or use of experimental "vaccines") or whether the experimental nature of the vaccines justifies the provisions of the Code.

Current claims of violation of the Nuremberg Code: 

Arguing that the COVID-19 vaccines are necessarily experimental, as has been authoritatively emphasized, the controversial question has been raised as to whether mandatory vaccination constitutes a violation under the rules of the Nuremberg Code (1947), as widely claimed on social media.

Various legal initiatives are in process of elaboration:

Especially problematic may prove to be the hundreds of patents accorded for coronavirus-specific research, both prior to the pandemic and during its development, most notably in the USA, as assiduously documented by David Martin (The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier, 2021). Given the manner in which human rights will be invoked in any trial, of future relevance are the obligations incumbent on owners and licensors of intellectual property as they constrain response to a crisis -- as the pandemic has been claimed to be (From Patent Rights to Patent Responsibilities, 2007).

Denial of violation of the Nuremberg Code: Efforts to invoke the Nuremberg Code in challenges to enforced vaccination have been dismissed as supported only by "pseudo-legal" arguments. The legal relevance of those arguments has however been extensively clarified (Alliance for Human Research Protection, The Significance of the Nuremberg Code: The Universal Right of Informed Consent to Medical Interventions, Global Research, 7 April  2021).

Policies like "no jab, no travel" and "no jab, no job" of course avoid any restrictive interpretation of the Nuremberg Code -- thereby reframing the question as to what is "forced" in the light of issues of structural violence. The argument can be taken further in questioning whether "no jab; no job" policies constitute coercion intended to evoke consent.

Of interest in that respect is a case of human experimentation in the USA (Katie Dowd, The San Quentin prison doctor who performed over 10,000 human experiments, SFGATE, 13 August 2019). The physician named in the latter, Leo Stanley, merits comparison with Josef Mengele, renowned for his experiments as a physician at Auschwitz (Ethan Blue, The Strange Career of Dr Leo Stanley: remaking manhood and medicine at San Quentin State Penitentiary, 1913-1951, Pacific Historical Review, 78, 2009, 2). Previously considered to be conspiracy theories prior to the documents being declassified, other instances have recently come to light (El Mehdi El Azhary, Shocking Secrets Declassified By the US Government, Medium, 7 March 2021).

If the prisoner is offered a special privilege (additional food?). at what point is the consent evoked to be interpreted as coercion in the light of the Nuremberg Code? "No jab; no job"?

Trials of the judiciary following the Nuremberg pattern? In addition to the trial giving rise to the Nuremberg Code, other trials were subsequently held -- of which the most relevant to the current pandemic is the so-called Judges' Trial (or Justice Trial). The defendants in this case were 16 German jurists and lawyers. Nine had been officials of the Reich Ministry of Justice, the others were prosecutors and judges of the Special Courts and People's Courts of Nazi Germany. They were -- amongst other charges -- held responsible for implementing and furthering the Nazi "racial purity" program through the eugenic and racial laws. It is appropriate to ask what resemblance this may have in legal terms with current court cases regarding human rights in the context of the pandemic and the pattern of mandatory vaccination increasingly upheld by certain courts.

The future historical legacy of the current treatment of "informed consent" in the courts -- confirming the government position on "human rights" -- may well be usefully illustrated by the situation in Germany subsequent to the Judges' Trial (Ben Knight, Reinhard Strecker, the man who exposed German judiciary's Nazi past, DW, 26 January 2015; Ben Knight, Case against Oskar Gröning highlights Germany judiciary's Holocaust problem, The Guardian, 17 September 2014; Klaus Wiegrefe, The German Judiciary Failed Approach to Auschwitz and Holocaust, Spiegel International, 28 August 2014).

Future prospect of children suing parents? As noted above, there is an increasing tendency to require the vaccination of children of an ever younger age -- however this may be understood with respect to children's rights. With the as yet unknown possibility of long-term vaccine adverse effects, notably associated with "Long COVID", there is the prospect under some jurisdictions of children suing their parents, especially once they reach maturity (Dana Hinders, How to Sue a Parent for Past Physical and Mental Abuse, Legal Beagle). Children may choose to sue others for their parents death (Can Adult and Minor Children Sue for a Parent's Wrongful Death? Kanner and Pentaluga, 2 November 2020). Although historically the legal focus of the thalidomide scandal was on the capacity of parents to sue the phamaceutical company responsible, this suggests the possibility of children born as a consequence of suing their parents for having ingested thalidomide prior to their birth with defects.

[Parts: First | Prev | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

For further updates on this site, subscribe here