Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Nuremberg Code’

Those Who Violated Nuremberg Code Must Be Prosecuted for Crimes Against Humanity

Posted by M. C. on August 24, 2022

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.

By Mary Holland
Children’s Health Defense

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the DayIt’s free.

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.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Nuremberg Code (German: Nürnberger Kodex) – Wikipedia

Posted by M. C. on June 19, 2021

Something to bear in mind when an employer says you have to take an experimental drug to keep your job.

The Nuremberg Code (German: Nürnberger Kodex) is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation created by the USA v Brandt court as one result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War. In a review written on the 50th anniversary of the Brandt verdict, Katz writes that “a careful reading of the judgment suggests that” the authors wrote the Kodex “for the practice of human experimentation whenever it is being conducted.”[1]

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

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

The Kodex has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association. In fact, the Kodex’s reference to Hippocratic duty to the individual patient and the need to provide information was not initially favored by the American Medical Association.[13]

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

RFK, Jr. to Rutgers President: COVID Vaccine Mandate Violates Federal Law • Children’s Health Defense

Posted by M. C. on March 30, 2021

The announcement last week by Rutgers University that it would require all students to get the COVID vaccine prompted CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to remind university officials that federal law prohibits mandating Emergency Use Authorization vaccines.

By  Children’s Health Defense Team

Rutgers University last week announced it will require all students enrolled for the 2021 fall semester to be vaccinated for COVID-19.

The announcement prompted Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to remind university officials that federal law prohibits mandating products approved under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

In a letter to Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway, Kennedy, who also serves as chief legal counsel for CHD, wrote:

“Federal law 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requires that the person to whom an EUA vaccine is administered be advised, ‘of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.’”

The reason for the right of refusal stems from the fact that EUA products are by definition experimental, Kennedy wrote. “Under the Nuremberg Code, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is ‘absolutely essential,’” Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy said forced participation in a medical experiment could result in injury.

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, who also spoke out against Rutgers’ policy, agreed. Specifically, he said, students should be pre-screened for COVID infection before vaccination.

In an open letter to Rutgers, Noorchashm, a surgeon and patient safety advocate, wrote:

“While I fully agree with your policy of maximal immunity for all students and faculty attending in-person on the Rutgers campuses, you must also remain 100% cognizant of a potential danger of indiscriminate vaccination to some of your students. This potential danger is not only a safety risk, it would also pose a risk of liability to your university.”

Noorchashm has been an outspoken critic of indiscriminate mass vaccination because he believes people already or currently infected with COVID are at risk of severe injury, including death.

As he told The Defender last week, viral antigens persist in the tissues of the naturally infected for months. According to Noorchashm, when the vaccine is used too early after a natural infection, or worse during an active infection, the vaccine force activates a powerful immune response that attacks the tissues where the natural viral antigens are persisting.

“This, I suggest, is the cause of the high level of adverse events and, likely deaths, we are seeing in the recently infected following vaccination,” Noorchashm said.

Holloway last week told The New York Times the vaccine mandate will apply to Rutgers’ three main campuses and that students will have to show “proof of vaccination” before moving into a dorm or attending in-person classes. Students will be able to file for medical or religious exemptions, and those attending online or off-campus programs will also be exempt.

NBC News last week reached out to several universities and colleges, which said they would encourage students to get the vaccine, but hadn’t yet decided on mandates.

Lynn Pasquerella, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, told NBC:

“I’m just starting to hear discussion about mandating vaccines, and everyone I’ve talked to has said that they are leaning in the direction of mandating vaccines not just with the students, but with faculty and staff, as well.”

According to CHD President Mary Holland, federal law prohibits employers from mandating EUA vaccines.

In December 2020, CHD published “Vaccine Mandates: An Erosion of Civil Rights?” The downloadable e-book examines the history and consequences of vaccine mandates, and what you can do to protect yourself and your family members as public officials ramp up the pressure for COVID vaccines.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Lockdowns: Immoral, Illegal, and Ineffective – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 16, 2020

The immorality of the lockdowns is evident from many perspectives (such as the non-aggression principle of libertarians). Here I will focus on the Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code for medical ethics developed in the wake of Nazi crimes during WWII. This list is in terms of a medical experiment, but as implied above we are all guinea pigs now.

By Ira Katz

To lockdown a nation to prevent the spread of an infectious disease is a medical intervention never tried in the history of the world before 2020 and then almost immediately employed throughout most of the world. This observation alone is worth in depth consideration. Here I will make the case that, considered as a medical intervention, lockdowns are immoral, illegal and ineffective.


The immorality of the lockdowns is evident from many perspectives (such as the non-aggression principle of libertarians). Here I will focus on the Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code for medical ethics developed in the wake of Nazi crimes during WWII. This list is in terms of a medical experiment, but as implied above we are all guinea pigs now.

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
  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.
  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.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  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.
  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.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  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.
  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.
  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.

Clearly, the most obvious and important violation of lockdowns is of point 1 and the related point 9. Lockdowns are applied without consent and nobody is allowed to opt out. Point 2 is also violated. More fruitful approaches are available as explained in the Great Barrington Declaration. Point 3 is not directly applicable, but does highlight the fact that our rulers are flying blind with no animal or human pilot results to guide them (more on this below). The repugnant nature in which the lockdowns have been applied often are aimed to create physical and mental suffering and injury (for example, fear is always induced) violating point 4. Point 6 is also important to emphasize. What is the real importance of this problem. To me the fabrications and frauds of the Covid story were evident in the WHO declaration of the pandemic in March. The comparison of the infection fatality rate between Chinese hospitalized patients for Covid and the general population for flu was pure fraud. It is clear from this UK radio interview that the epidemiologists who have concocted this intervention have not done anything to quantify the negative effects violating point 7.


I am not a lawyer so I will rely on Lord Sumption’s (the former supreme court justice) dissection of government illegality in the UK as a model of how governments have been acting. Furthermore,  it does not take a lawyer or health professional to note the violations of the Bill of Rights in the US.

Herein I will emphasize the more focused legal norms of the medical community. The fundamental basis of regulatory affairs is to assure, based on evidence from in vitro, ex vivo, in vivo preclinical and clinical testing that all medical interventions (pharmaceuticals, devices, procedures) are both effective and safe. The gold standard of evidence is the controlled, randomized clinical trial (CRCT). Furthermore, this testing should be assessed for all groups affected; men and women, different age groups, different race and ethnic groups. The lack of CRCTs for other Covid related interventions has been the common critique of the medical community against, for example, hydroxychloroquine. My key point is that no CRCT has been performed to assess the efficacy or safety of national lockdowns. The fact that such a trial is even difficult to imagine makes the case stronger not to apply this blunt instrument.

The fact that CRCTs are often severely compromised is not relevant to my argument here.


I noted above that there is no CRCT to prove the effectiveness of national lockdowns. Nonetheless, we do have data on the experience of the different countries (and US states) that have employed lockdowns, with the important case of Sweden as a control. Getting all of the data (which is always suspect today) into a form for easy comparison is an enormous task that government officials refuse to perform. Tom Woods has been collecting graphs from internet sources that should be required viewing by all citizens for their own wellbeing. I reproduce one of those graphs here that alone makes a devastating case for ending all national lockdowns.Not only did lockdowns not reduce the first wave in Europe, they have set us up for the second wave.

I am sure most readers will have already noted that a similar analysis can be applied to other Covid responses such as mask mandates and vaccinations.

The Best of Ira Katz Ira Katz [send him mail] lives in Paris and works as a research engineer for a French company. He is the co-author of Handling Mr. Hyde: Questions and Answers about Manic Depression and Introduction to Fluid Mechanics.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »