Make the Nuremberg Code Great Again!
What is "informed consent" and what does it mean for Texas?
Covidstan has assaulted many principles we used to hold dear as a representative republic: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of peaceful assembly, right to due process, writ of habeas corpus, presumption of innocence. These principles are are well-founded in the US and Texas Constitutions. However, one principle that may not be as well-understood, but is nonetheless necessary for living as a free citizen in a constitutional republic is informed consent.
The Nuremberg Code (full text below) emerged from the Nuremburg trials of Nazi war criminals after WWII. It sought to memorialize principles of ethical medical experimentation to include the interests and well-being of the individual test subject and establish guardrails for the persons conducting medical experiments.
Item one of the Nuremburg Code says “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…”.
Covid Cultists go to great lengths to note that the Nuremberg Code applies only to medical experiments, not “public health measures” and the clinical trials for the Covid drugs were “completed ethically”. They make a further show of saying that the Nuremberg Code is not codified into law and not applicable to our current regime of coercion, fear and control.
Laying aside that the difference between medical experiments and Covid “public health measures” is dangerously thin, such blandishments represent a superficial and sophomoric understanding of the Nuremberg Code and its deeper meaning.
Is the idea behind the code to narrowly govern medical experiments? Or is it to uphold the worth, autonomy and well-being of the individual? Are we to believe such strong language like “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion” is verboten for only for medical experiments but is A-OK for “public health measures”? Does the principle of informed consent apply at a places and all times or does it not? Emerging just a few years removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, I think we can safely assume the Nuremburg authors had more in mind than merely administering a mundane clinical trial.
In the years following WWII, with the Holocaust still fresh in peoples’ minds and the Cold War serving up daily reminders of Communism’s godless tyranny, the medical establishment understood these guiderails and generally stayed within them. In these latter days, however, it seems the quest for profit, power and prestige has proven too enticing for our biomedical overlords to resist. Now is the time for a righteous and peaceful uprising of the people against this unholy axis of Big Pharma, Big Tech and Big Government once and for all.
Making the Nuremberg Code great again means giving it the force of law. It means empowering the individual to stand up to the medical tyrants currently running roughshod over our health and freedoms. It means giving the concept of informed consent and other Nuremburg principles a legal foundation, giving the individual strong legal protections and causes of action against multi-billion dollar corporations and unaccountable government entities.
Texas should lead the way in enshrining the principles of the Nuremburg code into its laws to extend and protect the Constitutional rights of its citizens. These laws should include crippling penalties for private or public entities that infringe on those rights. As we have tragically learned since the invasion of Covidstan in March 2020, Big Pharma, Big Government and Big Tech will not discipline themselves. It is up to us to deliver justice and lasting punishments.
The Nuremberg Code
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.The 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.
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 justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
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.
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.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
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.
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.
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.
See The Nuremberg Code (cirp.org) for more details.
Click “Subscribe now” to join the growing army of Texas patriots dedicated to repelling the Branch Covidian invaders.