In the last two-and-a-half years, tragically, we have witnessed a global assault on the Nuremberg Code, according to Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland. We can restore this foundation of medical ethics … but only if we come together.
Editor’s Note: Following are remarks delivered by Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense president and general counsel, on Aug. 20 in Nuremberg, Germany, at an event hosted by Action Alliance, a group of German activists, to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg Code.
Thank you to all who have made this event possible — it is a great honor to be here.
The Nuremberg Code is an international monument to humanity. It is a critical guidepost, not unlike the 10 Commandments in the New Testament or similar guidance in other religions.
In essence, the code says: “Do this, and you will stay on the right path; stray from this, and bad things will happen.”
The last two-and-a-half years have certainly proven the wisdom of this document.
I am especially honored to be here because the authors of the Nuremberg Code were doctors and lawyers from the United States who sought to prevent future horrors. And they built on medical and legal ethics established here in Germany before the Nazi regime.
I deeply wish that U.S., British, Russian and German government representatives were here to stand with us, as well as representatives of the global mainstream media.
It is a sad commentary that they are absent.
But I rejoice that The People’s representatives from all over the world are here — because it is “We the People” who will restore our rights, our laws and our morality and lead us out of these troubled times.
For more than 75 years, the Nuremberg Code has been a beacon of light — all medical and legal norms have been based on it since 1947.
The Nuremberg Code is the foundation for modern medical ethics.
The code has been incorporated into U.S. federal and state law, and U.S. courts have recognized the Nuremberg Code as a universal, international legal standard — like the norms prohibiting slavery and piracy.
The Nuremberg Code exists and is enforceable even if a country or institution or individual denies its validity.
The consent of the individual is absolutely essential in all medical experimentation. There are no exceptions.
Tragically, in the last two-and-a-half years, we have witnessed a global assault on the Nuremberg Code.
Governments, medical establishments, universities and the media have violated the very first principle and every other principle of the code’s 10 points.
They have coerced people into being human guinea pigs.
In the wake of the massive raid at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, politicians and pundits are hectoring Americans to blindly trust the FBI.
“The men and women of the FBI,” Attorney General Merrick Garland proclaimed, “are dedicated, patriotic public servants.” But the FBI would be more credible if it didn’t claim a right to secretly wield almost unlimited power.
Most Americans (53%) view the FBI as “Joe Biden‘s personal Gestapo,” a recent Rasmussen poll found. FBI actions 30 years ago at Ruby Ridge help explain the G-men’s fall from grace.
Randy Weaver and his family lived in an isolated cabin in the northern Idaho mountains. Undercover federal agents targeted him and entrapped him into selling a sawed-off shotgun. The feds sought to pressure Weaver to become an informant, but he refused.
After Weaver was sent the wrong court date and (understandably) failed to show up, the feds used any and all means to take him down. On Aug. 21, 1992, six US Marshals outfitted in full camouflage and toting automatic weapons trespassed onto Weaver’s property. Marshals circled close to the Weaver cabin and threw rocks to provoke the Weavers’ dogs.
Weaver’s son, Sammy, 14, and Kevin Harris, a 25-year-old family friend living in the cabin, ran to see what the dogs were barking at. Marshals killed one of the dogs, and Sammy fired in their direction. As Sammy was leaving the scene, a marshal shot him in the back and killed him. Harris responded by fatally shooting a marshal who had fired seven shots.
A survey has shown that now in light of the recent events, seven out of ten citizens prefer the continuation of said power plants. Almost ironically, even most Green Party voters are in favor, according to the survey.
It has been said the propping up of the Ukraine war is to defeat Nord Stream 2. Germany has to suffer loss of heat in winter just as the US has to suffer inflated food prices in the name of US empire building.
“We are the makers of our own fate,” said Christian Lindner (FDP, Free Democratic Party), German federal minister of finance, in a TV interview not too long ago. This statement was made in the context of being asked if Vladimir Putin had had a hold over Germany, considering its rather dire energy situation, now, but especially going into winter.
Torn between a decade-long reliance on cheap Russian gas on the one side and a sudden desperation to be energy independent in the face of the Ukraine war, Germany is now in the uncomfortable position to have neither. To use the words of Robert Habeck (Green Party), federal minister for economic affairs and climate action, “every kilowatt-hour counts.” Germany has waited too long to side—the time is up.
According to the Federal Network Agency, 55 percent of Germany’s imported gas derives from Russia, mainly via the gas pipeline Nord Stream 1. Of late, Germany has seen a decline in received gas, which, according to Russian sources, was the consequence of “technical problems.” It doesn’t take a lot of doubt to see how the current geopolitical circumstances might have played a role in this too. Now, Germany receives roughly 40 percent of previous levels of gas imports via Nord Stream 1, drastically decreasing its reserves. For over a week in July, this was even down to zero.
But how did Germany get itself into such a morally and strategically dubious situation?
Nord Stream 1 was questionable to begin with, let alone its sequel: Nord Stream 2. The ten-billion-euro project received widespread criticism from various sides during the years of its construction. After its completion last September, Chancellor Olaf Scholz abandoned the project in February this year as a reaction to the war in Ukraine.
Germany gave the green light to build Nord Stream 2 in 2015, four years after it began pumping gas via Nord Stream 1 in 2011, which is also the same year Germany made another pivotal decision regarding its future energy supply: exiting nuclear energy for good.
Back then, this issue had been long campaigned for by the Green Party, received support from other parties including the FDP with then general secretary Christian Lindner and was finally put into legislation by Angela Merkel and the CDU (Christian Democratic Union). Until the end of this year, the last three standing nuclear power plants in Germany are scheduled to be put out of service.
A 1920–30s radio host, Bob Shuler, had exposed the Julian Petroleum Corporation’s defrauding of investors, and subsequently accused the district attorney and city prosecutor of negligence. Shuler also exposed the Los Angeles mayor’s ties to organized crime. The payment for Shuler’s deeds was the loss of his station. He became the first casualty of “public interest.”
A hundred years of the public interest standard has been applied to radio and television, with the explicit goal of protecting free speech. The very opposite was the case, as John Samples and Paul Matzko have clearly shown.
A 1920–30s radio host, Bob Shuler, had exposed the Julian Petroleum Corporation’s defrauding of investors, and subsequently accused the district attorney and city prosecutor of negligence. Shuler also exposed the Los Angeles mayor’s ties to organized crime. The payment for Shuler’s deeds was the loss of his station. He became the first casualty of “public interest.”
The public interest standard was enforced by the Federal Radio Commission (later the Federal Communications Commission). The FRC/FCC used legislation and intimidation to steer public discourses toward the interests of the current administration.
The New Deal–era FCC used its control of limited government licenses to cull anti–National Recovery Administration advertisements. The Yankee Network was one such example. The FCC also targeted their least regulated foe (newspapers) by limiting them to the weaker AM frequencies.
Subjective auditing also became a common tool:
During the election of 1964, the Democratic National Committee used Fairness Doctrine complaints to intimidate radio stations into dropping broadcasters who supported Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater and to secure free airtime for the Lyndon Johnson campaign, some 1,700 free broadcasts in the final weeks before the election. (Samples, Matzko)
Where Kennedy had targeted independent radio stations, Nixon rendered broadcast television inept and imposed ownership limits on newspapers.
The public interest standard appealed to “security” and “knowledge,” not unlike the control we see online today.
The Unspoken Public Interest of Today
Modern information control appears to stem from the “private sector”; and indeed, when the right-leaning expose censorship, the left-leaning respond: “They are private companies!” If only.
The Left’s seizure of social media and search engines led to preferential treatment of leftist news; discriminatory content moderation; user targeting and false psychology pages to politically indoctrinate; and unprecedented network control during the 2020 election. Reminiscent of the old standard, the Left cites justifications of “hate” and “extremism” that donotshowup in objective analysis.
This new standard under the banner of leftism has government origins as well.
In an obscure process, the state tampered with the digital markets by (1) slandering competitors of the chosen platforms and created a market for information control by (2) promising large sums of money to developers and willing “researchers.”
Simply put, the state takes money from us, gives it to useful actors, and slanders the competition for not having those state-funded services. Their effort remained undetected due to the funding of charitable groups which are embedded into the search functions and other features of the platforms. These are not “organizations” but services; albeit manipulative services.
The petition link is here. This is the beginning of the petition
We are demanding our colleagues and fellow leaders in public health to reconsider and replace Dr. Wen with someone whose work is consistent with anti-racist, anti-eugenicist public health practices and community health
Happy Monday! This weekend, I was on on stage at a private event with Robert Kennedy Jr. Jill and I met with our good friend Bobby, met some grand people at the tabletop discussion and are now home. I am working on the book this week, but the tyranny of the urgent keeps getting in the way.
Today, I am sharing some of the news stories and essays that have had me thinking hard this past week.
The big news – just out!
Well that is… FAUCI IS OUT – come December! (Merry Christmas?). One year after my infamous prediction on the Laura Ingram show regarding Omicron. Which, given Fauci’s likely accrued vaca time – probably means he is all but out the door now.
I am announcing today that I will be stepping down from the positions of Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Chief of the NIAID Laboratory of Immunoregulation, as well as the position of Chief Medical Advisor to President Joe Biden. I will be leaving these positions in December of this year to pursue the next chapter of my career.
The Washington Examiner published this op-ed this morning. The gist of the story is along the lines of what I was writing last week:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky admitted this week that her agency made “some pretty dramatic public mistakes” handling the coronavirus, promising to “pivot” the organization so that it can better provide information to ordinary people.
But communication was never the CDC’s real problem. That was its arrogant and politicized leadership, which was unable to tell the truth. That is why no one trusts the CDC anymore or cares much for its guidance, whatever it happens to be. The cure begins with Walensky’s resignation.
One of the more interesting bits of news over the last week is that Public Health leadership and associated community are turning on one of their own leaders. Dr. Leana Wen (CNN health policy analyst) actually has the nerve to suggest that COVID-19 is here to stay. That it is time to open up schools, end mask and vaccine mandates. For those that don’t know, Dr. Wen is also the former public health commissioner of Baltimore and past president of Planned Parenthood.
For the sin of recognizing reality and advocating a return to normalcy, there is an online petition to have Dr. Wen taken off the speaker list at this year’s American Public Health Association (APHA) meeting.
The petition link is here. This is the beginning of the petition
We are demanding our colleagues and fellow leaders in public health to reconsider and replace Dr. Wen with someone whose work is consistent with anti-racist, anti-eugenicist public health practices and community health
Whoa! Stop and think about this. A liberal public health spokesperson, known for her pragmatic style but who had previously advocated for rather extreme lockdown/vaccination measures and policies, is being outed as “unscientific, nonsensical, unsafe, ableist, fatphobic, and unethical” – and they basically also call her “racist” – holding “eugenicist public health” practice beliefs!
Oh, just so we are clear, the petition also implies that the Supreme Court Roe V. Wade is also her fault. The petitions goes on to state that many employees under her at planned parenthood were unhappy with her management style and didn’t like that she wouldn’t politicize abortion. You can’t make this stuff up.
Yep- I had to read that portion of the petition again. The petitioners blame Dr. Wen for the Supreme Court ruling on abortion. Reading from the petition:
Is all this anger in the petition because Dr. Wen is now advocating for a fairly moderate points of view on how to handle public health and policy for COVID-19 going forward?
Or is this really about finding a scapegoat for the Roe V. Wade decision? Did these petitioners actually call Dr. Wen the nonsensical one? Pot calling kettle black!
There are currently 620 signatories. Many are from prominent positions in academia and government. The names are all listed at the end of the petition. Personally, I had an interesting time reading the names and job titles. I suggest y’ll taking a look and see who might be in your region – these are our public health officials folks. Making decisions on how to handle COVID-19, Monkeypox and the next new pandemic.
Of course, this all fits into Mass Formation model of crowd formation -where eventually the puritans turn on each other. As no one can be “pure enough” to meet the standards imposed by the group.
Speaking of Mass Formation – I was searching on the term yesterday to write the above and discovered that Google has played with the algorithms for the term again. Most of the articles identified by a Google search were written during January, 2022 , and have been placed above any real analysis of Dr. Desmet’s work or research/news articles written after that time (when the corporate press were reacting to my Joe Rogan interview). Articles defending the term and body of academic work are not listed. The Epoch Times has written many articles on Mass Formation and those also do not pull up in a generic google search on “mass formation”. In fact, Dr. Desmet’s new academic book on the subject isn’t even in the search results. Just articles defaming me and delegitimizing the 100s of legitimate news articles and research tomes on the subject
Of course, there are also the over 100 million views of the Joe Rogan interview. But this episode also does not come up in any search for “mass formation.”
One might say: censorship at its finest.
The thing is, Google always has the last laugh because they can skew the results over time – and there isn’t a darn thing you and I can do about it! They re-write history in real time by controlling what information you are allowed to read.
What is seldom asked, is what is in this deal for those Americans who suffer to pay for our interventionist foreign policy. Do they really think a working American in Ohio or Pennsylvania is better off or safer because we are supposedly protecting Ukraine’s borders? I think most Americans would wonder why they aren’t bothering to protect our own borders.
There is a way out. It’s called “non-interventionism.” The war in Ukraine was caused by the US regime change in 2014 and the neocon insistence that Ukraine join NATO.
Aug. 22 – There is a video clip making the rounds showing President Biden speaking at a recent NATO summit about the seven billion dollars the US government had – at that time – provided to Ukraine. Attached to that is another clip showing the horrific state of several US major cities, including in Pennsylvania, California, and Ohio. The video of American cities is shocking: endless landscapes of filth, trash, homelessness, open fires on the street, drug-addicted zombies. It doesn’t look like the America most of us remember.
Watching Biden bragging about sending billions of dollars to corrupt leaders overseas with American cities looking like bombed-out Iraq or Libya is US foreign policy in a nutshell. The Washington elites tell the rest of America that they must “promote democracy” in some far-off land. Anyone who objects is considered in league with the appointed enemy of the day. Once it was Saddam, then Assad and Gaddafi. Now it’s Putin. The game is the same, only the names are changed.
What is seldom asked, is what is in this deal for those Americans who suffer to pay for our interventionist foreign policy. Do they really think a working American in Ohio or Pennsylvania is better off or safer because we are supposedly protecting Ukraine’s borders? I think most Americans would wonder why they aren’t bothering to protect our own borders.
A reported 200,000 illegals crossed the border into the US in July alone. You can believe they are learning quickly about the free money provided by the US government to illegals. They’ll probably get a voting card as well.
Last Friday the Pentagon announced that yet another $775 million would be sent to Ukraine. As Antiwar.com reported, it was the eighteenth weapons package to Ukraine in six months. Has there ever been a more idiotic US intervention in history?
Supporters of this proxy war may celebrate more aid to Ukraine, but the reality is that it is in no way aid to Ukraine. That’s not how the system works. It is money created out of thin air by the Fed and appropriated by Congress to be spent propping up the politically-connected military-industrial complex. It is a big check written by middle America to rich people who run Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. Americans watch their budget being stretched to the limit while the Beltway fat-cats loosen their belts to continue enjoying the gravy train.
Bloomberg reported earlier this summer that inflation is costing the average American household more than $5,200 this year. Inflation is a tax on middle class and poor Americans. The wealthy – like those who run Raytheon and Lockheed Martin – always get the new money first, before prices go up. The rest of us watch as the dollar buys less and less.
As Washington salivates over fighting Russia in Ukraine, the rest of America feels like we’re becoming Zimbabwe. How long until it takes a trillion dollars for a loaf of bread? Will there be a run on wheelbarrows?
There is a way out. It’s called “non-interventionism.” The war in Ukraine was caused by the US regime change in 2014 and the neocon insistence that Ukraine join NATO. The State Department and CIA thought it was a great victory to overthrow the elected government, but meanwhile the rest of us get the bill. No NATO and not one more penny for Ukraine!
By Vincent Cignarella, Bloomberg markets live commentator and reporter
Is the US at full employment and we just don’t know it yet?
The ratio of full-time workers to part-time workers is at a near 20-year high. It may be turning, and a drop in the ratio may spell peak inflation as companies adjust to cut costs. That’d mean a better environment for stocks and bonds going forward.
If the ratio falls, it likely means companies are either looking to replace higher paid full-time workers with less expensive part-time employees or they are seeing declining sales. Either way, it is a sign of rising costs and an attempt to lower them or a slowing economy.
Both scenarios could prompt a Fed pivot. A slowing economy and peaking inflation are the signs the Fed needs to see in order to pause rate hikes.
It’s difficult to know exactly when it happened, but not long ago many Americans suddenly looked around and discovered that they inhabited completely different moral universes from their neighbors.
Whether it’s Black Lives Matter, or teaching gender theory to children, or the usefulness or otherwise of the COVID restrictions, or a wide variety of other subjects, people on one side of the divide have exerted a moral imperialism over the other, refusing even to acknowledge that there can be another side on issues like these, and have instead tried to drive their opponents from polite society through intense social pressure and the outright suppression of dissident voices.
The same people who lecture us day and night about how we shouldn’t “impose our morality” on other people think absolutely nothing of demonizing half of America and imposing their ideas on other people’s children.
Scarcely anyone stops to ask: is this arrangement making us happy? Is it contributing to human flourishing?
To the contrary, it’s causing conflict, suspicion, anger, and frustration – and everyone knows it.
Yet for some reason we carry on, as if continuing down this path will somehow lead to a different result, even though any fool can see that things are only going to get worse.
The media, meanwhile, are happy to fan the flames of social conflict, but never urge us to consider the humane possibility of a world in which we simply don’t do this anymore.
My new eBook National Divorce, which I am giving away for free, offers a radical proposal: how about we just stop?
As I show in the book, there is nothing unconstitutional or “extremist” or unthinkable about national divorce.
What holds people back from considering it is a combination of status-quo bias and the superstitious reverence we’ve all been taught to have for “the Union.”
But as Thomas Jefferson correctly conceived of it, the Union is merely a means to an end. It is not an end in itself. Much less should it be treated as an object of religious reverence. If it does not promote liberty, then we should discard it and try something else.
Now, fair warning: the ideas you will encounter in this book are not to be found on the three-by-five card of allowable opinion. We are not even supposed to discuss the subject matter of this book, dear reader. Why, the New York Times hasn’t approved it for us!
But I’d say the time has come to steel our resolve and be willing to consider – radical though this may sound – ideas that the New York Times tells us are not allowed.
The very nature of totalitarianism involves the intoxicating temptation to create the perfect society through a combination of propaganda, centralized power, and the demonization of dissidents.
Against such a project we ought to set that couplet with which Michael Oakeshott concluded his essay on the Tower of Babel:
Who in fields Elysian would dwell Do but extend the boundaries of Hell.
In a free society, there should be no suits for “defamation.” You don’t own your reputation, and people should be free to determine what they think of you, based on their own assessment of the evidence.
Earlier this month, a jury issued a $49 million judgment against the heroic Alex Jones for defamation. This is a chilling blow to free speech in our country. As John Frahm puts it, “This massive 49 Million Alex Jones trial award is corrupt and is a harbinger against free speech of all sorts. And he had two other trials to go. This is really serious. Pure evil. They declared their intent. Free speech of every sort has just been targeted for destruction and lock down under a social credit system. If you offend someone you can be destroyed. If you question a narrative you can be destroyed.
Beware.”
In a free society, there should be no suits for “defamation.” You don’t own your reputation, and people should be free to determine what they think of you, based on their own assessment of the evidence. As the great Murray Rothbard explains, “0ur theory of property rights can be used to unravel a tangled skein of complex problems revolving around questions of knowledge, true and false, and the dissemination of that knowledge. Does Smith, for example, have the right (again, we are concerned about his right, not the morality or esthetics of his exercising that right) to print and disseminate the statement that ‘Jones is a liar’ or that ‘Jones is a convicted thief’ or that ‘Jones is a homosexual’? There are three logical possibilities about the truth of such a statement: (a) that the statement about Jones is true; (b) that it is false and Smith knows it is false; or (c) most realistically, that the truth or falsity of the statement is a fuzzy zone, not certainly and precisely knowable (e.g., in the above cases, whether or not someone is a ‘liar’ depends on how many and how intense the pattern of lies a person has told and is adjudged to add up to the category of ‘liar’ -an area where individual judgments can and will properly differ). Suppose that Smith’s statement is definitely true. It seems clear, then, that Srnith has a perfect right to print and disseminate the statement. For it is within his property right to do so. lt is also, of course, within the property right of Jones to try to rebut the statement in his turn. The current libel laws make Smith’s action illegal if done with ‘malicious’ intent, even though the information be true. And yet, surely legality or illegality should depend not on the motivation of the actor, but on the objective nature of the act. If an action is objectively non-invasive, then it should be legal regardless of the benevolent or malicious intentions of the actor (though the latter may well be relevant to the morality of the action). And this is aside from the obvious difficulties in legally determining an individual’s subjective motivations for any action. lt might, however, be charged that Smith does not have the right to print such a statement, because Jones has a ‘right to privacy’ (his ‘human’ right) which Smith does not have the right to violate. But is there really such a right to privacy? How can there be? How can there be a right to prevent Smith by force from disseminating knowledge which he possesses? Surely there can be no such right. Smith owns his own body, and therefore has the property right to own the knowledge he has inside his head, including his knowledge about Jones. And therefore he has the corollary right to print and disseminate that knowledge. In short, as in the case of the ‘human right’ to free speech, there is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one’s property from invasion. The only right ‘to privacy’ is the right to protect one’s property from being invaded by someone else. In brief, no one has the right to burgle someone else’s home, or to wiretap someone’s phone lines. Wiretapping is properly a crime not because of some vague and woolly ‘invasion of a ‘right to privacy’, but because it is an invasion of the property right of the person being wiretapped. At the present time, the courts distinguish between persons ‘in the public eye’ who are adjudged not to have a right to privacy against being mentioned in the public press, and ‘private’ persons who are considered to have such a right. And yet, such distinctions are surely fallacious. To the libertarian, everyone has the same right in his person and in the goods which he finds, inherits, or buys—and it is illegitimate to make distinctions in property right between one group of people and another. If there were some sort of ‘right to privacy,’ then simply being mentioned widely in the press (i.e. previous losses of the ‘right’) could scarcely warrant being deprived of such right completely. No, the only proper course is to maintain that no one has any spurious ‘right to privacy’ or right not to be mentioned publicly; while everyone has the right to protect his property against invasion. No one can have a property right in the knowledge in someone else’s head.” See this.
Regardless of what you think about Sandy Hook, though, it’s clear that Alex Jones is an authentic hero. Jon Rappoport has a good account of the essential facts about his public activities. “Let’s start here. While Jones was supporting Trump, he also mercilessly attacked the horrifically destructive COVID vaccines. In the process, he forcefully awakened millions of Trump followers to a truth they were unaware of or didn’t want to face. In the process, lives were saved.
Decades ago, long before it was fashionable to do so, Jones explained and righteously attacked Globalism, the Rockefeller Empire, . . .
Perceived by the public as living on the political Right, Jones confounded that perception by attacking both big government and big corporations, while so-called conservatives were routinely and conveniently letting criminal corporations off the hook.
About 20 years ago, the day after George Noory interviewed me about those corporations, Jones called me out of the blue and insisted I come on his radio show and talk about the subject at length.
Very early in his radio career, he saw the gathering clouds of medical dictatorship on the horizon and spoke about it compellingly. His audience got a strong dose of something they’d never thought about.
MCViewPoint 
