Categories
Geneva Truth Vaccines

The Geneva Conventions War With Forced Vaccines

By Cathi Chamberlain

Combining various international treaties since its inception in 1864, the Geneva Conventions were originally intended for, and still stand as, protections for soldiers and civilians in wartime. So, with the vaccines for COVID being discussed as a possible crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Code, which falls under the Geneva Conventions, the question arises: Are we at war? 

During what became known as “The Doctors’ Trial” after WWII, concerns arose about medical experimentation on humans. 

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from those conducted before the war by German and American scientists. They showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation.” (Emphasis mine). Thus, the Nuremberg Code was created comprising ten points outlining acceptable medical research and standards.

Part I of this series is entitled, “How the Nuremberg Code Applies to the Vaccine.” It explains the doctrine of voluntary and informed consent of the participant in medical applications under the Code. Its “adoption into the 1949 Geneva Conventions later gave [it] international standing. Breaking from the Convention’s intent presumably constitutes a war crime.”

More importantly, the term “medical experimentation” as stated in the Nuremberg Code is defined in Part 1.

My argument in Part I of this series asks why, since the Code falls under the Geneva Conventions, ought not the Conventions’ umbrella classification applying to “wartime” victims also extend to the Code’s intention by default? And, if true, where do civilians fall? Of course that’s a legal question and I don’t pretend to be an attorney. But it seems to me that the presumption could easily be made. Yet no one is making it.

That said, why have tens of thousands of doctors recently signed on to what’s being called the new “Nuremberg Trials 2021?” Legal proceedings have been filed against the CDC, the WHO and the Davos Group for crimes against humanity by over a thousand attorneys worldwide.

Led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, the “Nuremberg Trials 2021” team argues that the vaccines are in violation of Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. It claims that Article 32 states that “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. And, “according to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.”

Indeed, the International Committee of the Red Cross confirms that Article 32 specifies that “protected persons must not in any circumstances be used as ‘guinea-pigs’ for medical experiments. ‘Biological experiments’ are also prohibited by the other three Conventions of 1949.”

I believe, as laid out in Part 1, that there are convincing arguments as to why the COVID-19 vaccines fall into the “experimental” definition of the Nuremberg Code in multiple ways.

Regardless, on a deeper dive into Article 32, its title is telling. The formal document, shown in an uploaded PDF version from the United Nations, is called the “GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR OF 12 AUGUST 1949.” Again the reference to wartime is notable.

Cornell Law School says that, “[t]he Geneva Conventions … provide minimum protections, standards of humane treatment, and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals who become victims of armed conflicts.” It doesn’t say ‘victims of unarmed conflicts.’

Like on Instagram

Multiple educational resources concur with the aforementioned references to “wartime” terms, including World Atlas. It states that “[t]he Geneva Conventions refer to international agreements that are made up of four treaties and three protocols that define the treatment of people during a war.” (Emphasis added.)

How can it be, then, that the Nuremberg Code, falling under the Geneva Conventions, could be used in any argument against the COVID vaccine during a time of peace? Recent history offers some clues.

In an intriguing article from Wired published on Nov. 7, 2002, it seems as a country we’ve travelled this road before. The article’s title reads, “Forced Vaccines Haunt Gulf Vets — Rule No. 1 in the Nuremberg Code for conducting medical experiments: Get the subjects’ consent.” The author explains how our soldiers were given non-FDA-approved drugs prior to deploying to Desert Storm. Many returned with assorted unexplained illnesses. 

“‘We had a third day of shots before we went over (to the Gulf),’ said the ex-Ranger, who requested anonymity because his Army Reserve commitment [had] yet to expire. ‘Guys in other units only had two, but most Rangers had three. They wouldn’t tell us what they were for.’”

According to the article, the question of forced vaccines had been addressed years before. “In a February 1953 directive, Defense Secretary Charles Wilson established what [was] still the ‘law of the land’ governing such experimentation. Consistent with the Nuremberg Code, the directive’s cornerstone is voluntary consent,’ according to Wilson.

“‘The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,’ Wilson wrote, ordering that such consent be given in writing before at least one witness. Wilson also banned use of ‘force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion’ in obtaining consent. When did that change?

“Did the Pentagon obey this directive during the Gulf War? According to Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, it did not. The administration of experimental drugs without consent was, Orient said, ‘the first instance in which an official government agency officially sanctioned the direct violation of the Nuremberg Code.’” And it was intentional!

“In a 1994 report called Human Experimentation and Other Intentional Exposures Conducted by the Department of Defense, [the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs] claimed that “‘[t]he results of our investigation showed a reckless disregard that shocked me,’ said Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV. ‘The Pentagon … threw caution to the winds, ignoring all warnings of potential harm, and gave these (investigational) drugs to hundreds of thousands of soldiers with virtually no warnings and no safeguards.’”

“‘There is no provision in the Nuremberg Code,’ the Rockefeller Committee report concluded, ‘that allows a country to waive informed consent for military personnel or veterans who serve as human subjects in experiments during wartime or in experiments that are conducted because of threat of war.’

If it protects our soldiers then in time of war, one would think it would also protect our civilian populations who are NOT in a state of war, right?

Responding to the accusations at the time, a Pentagon spokesperson stated: “‘[i]n all peacetime applications, we believe strongly in informed consent and its ethical foundations…. But military combat is different.’

In other words, according to the Pentagon in 1994, the Nuremberg Code only applied to soldiers in peacetime. It seems the narrative changes by what the “powers that be” deem convenient, at any given time.

In my book and articles, I habitually reference radical leftist Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, because it contains the tactics by which the left endeavors to transform America to socialism and then communism. As important as his thirteen tactics, however, are his lesser-known eleven rules of ethics of means and ends. They provide a window into why the left, and Democrats by extension, can justify their out-of-control unethical behavior.

“Alinsky’s third rule of ethics of means and ends, ‘in war the end justifies almost any means’, applies to the left’s unapologetic, unethical shaming of all things conservative.” (Rules for Deplorables, pg. 215)

Arguing for the new “Nuremberg Code 2021” wouldn’t require convincing others that we’re at war with China per se (as if they even needed such justification). In order for the experimental vaccines to be criminalized, just say: We’re at war with the left!

If, on the other hand, the Pentagon’s position in 1994 is considered, then the Code’s “informed consent and its ethical foundations” are binding “in all peacetime applications” stays. They can’t have it both ways.

Necessarily, Alinsky’s fourth tactic, “make the enemy live up to its own book of rules,” must be applied. If the original Nuremberg Code of 1949 falls under the “wartime” parameters of the Geneva Conventions, and the vaccine is indeed “experimental” as my Part I of this series argues, then the signers of the “new Code” may well have a case.

It’s a fact that the military knowingly condoned experimental medical treatment well after the 1949 Nuremberg Code was established under the Geneva Conventions. And, that they felt justified in doing so. Why on earth should Americans believe the government would follow ethical standards now?

The simple answer is, we shouldn’t. Whether Americans accept it or not, we are in a state of war for the very survival of our country. The enemy should neither be trusted nor obeyed. 

We ought to be fighting for transparency, the right of informed consent, and most importantly, the right to freedom of choice. If we do not stand strong for these minimal protections now, we are not mere guinea pigs, we are the experiment itself.

Cathi Chamberlain, aka The Deplorable Author and founder of The Deplorable Report, is a four-time start-up business owner, published author of a self-help book featured on CNN worldwide and owner of the nation’s first all-female construction company. She is a sought-after political speaker and has been a regular contributor on the Salem Media Radio Network. In her book, “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism,” Cathi heavily references Saul Alinsky’s 1970’s blockbuster book, “Rules for Radicals.” She is currently on her “Florida Deplorable Book Tour.” Contact her for your next speaking event at [email protected]


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Categories
Truth Vaccines

How the Nuremberg Code Applies to the Vaccine

By Cathi Chamberlain 

The first mandate listed in the “Permissible Medical Experiments” section of volume II of the Trials of War Criminals reads: “[t]he voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” That’s it then, right? Shouldn’t Biden be locked up as a war criminal? After all, he’s been calling for forced vaccines. And they are experimental.

During Military Tribunals in Germany following World War II, Nazi doctors and medical administrators were tried for atrocities committed during the holocaust. To prevent a repeat of the evils perpetrated on humanity, the judges outlined 10 conditions for permissible medical experiments in the future that became known as the Nuremberg Code. 

Its adoption into the 1949 Geneva Conventions later gave the 1947 Code international standing. Breaking from the Convention’s intent presumably constitutes a war crime. Thus, with COVID jabs being forced on unwilling participants, we ought to at least understand what the Nuremberg Code is about.

Some fact checkers, as is often the case, are basing their Nuremberg Code vaccine arguments on opinion. Take USA Today, for example. Once a respected news organization, they’ve now jumped on the lucrative bandwagon of having in-house “fact-checkers.” If any of your Facebook posts have ever been banned, there’s a good chance USA Today was responsible. 

An article published August 10, 2021 attempts to discredit one Facebook user’s claim that forced vaccinations go against the Nuremberg Code. USA Today’s fact-checkers state that “[t]he claim that ‘forced’ vaccines are against the Nuremberg Code is FALSE, based on our research.” Notice they aren’t discrediting that vaccines are covered under the Code. Simply that the current forced vaccines aren’t illegal.

That claim might have held water until one reads the disclaimer at the end of the article: “Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.” Oh, no bias there!

Putting that aside, let’s dissect the USA Today fact-checkers’ “evidence.” 

Their “research” led to their assumption that the “Nuremberg Code addresses human experimentation, not vaccines approved for emergency use.” Fair enough. But where is their proof that “Americans who get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not part of an experiment.” Or that “[t]he vaccines have been tested in clinical trials and found to be safe and effective.” I couldn’t find it.

Their main source justifies the record speed of the vaccine by the “layering” of trials made possible by advancements in technology, abundance of funding, and relaxing of bureaucratic regulations. That’s all well and good, but nowhere does the fact-checkers’ source state that the resulting vaccine was proven safe and effective.

My research has discovered quite the opposite.

While the jabs were indeed approved for emergency use authorization, such status is normally reserved when no other treatments are available. Per the FDA’s own website, they “may authorize unapproved medical products … to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions … when … there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.” (Emphasis mine.)

Like on Instagram

But COVID-19 did have several “adequate, approved, and available alternatives.” And those had proven track records by the time the vaccine’s EUA was approved. Had they not been highly censored by social media and our own government agencies, including Facebook and Dr. Fauci’s NIAID, those alternatives would have saved many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more lives than they already have as has been proven by experts brave enough to publish their findings.

Dr. Peter McCullough, for example, known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers on COVID is just one of many. Today his work remains the most downloaded and utilized papers throughout the pandemic.

In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson of FOX News, McCullough, who has treated thousands of COVID patients, told Carlson there’s “been a global oblivion” to the idea of treating patients with COVID-19. There are effective outpatient treatments, “including monoclonal antibodies such as Regeneron and intracellular anti-infectives including hydroxychloroquine.” He is also a big proponent of Ivermectin.

McCullough added: “What frustrated me, was in the media cycle, all we heard about was reducing spread, and then later on vaccination. We never actually heard about treating sick patients. Had there been more of a focus on treating sick patients, early treatment could have prevented up to 85% of COVID deaths.” Instead, he said, there’s an “incredible suppression of early treatment in the medical literature.”

He’s hardly the only one speaking out. America’s Frontline Doctors, the mRNA inventor of the vaccine technology Dr. Robert Malone, Nobel Prize nominee and world-renowned “Physician of Presidents” Dr. Vladimir Zelenko have all risked their livelihoods and fortunes to get the truth out. Heavily censored and ridiculed, these whistleblowers have collectively saved scores of people with their successful treatment plans.

So just because social media controllers have shaped the narrative that treatments are non-existent doesn’t make it true. And simply because vaccines have been approved for EUA means little when the very alternative, and inexpensive, treatments for COVID have been banned. 

Which returns us to the original question of whether the vaccines are experimental as the above-mentioned fact-checkers deny.

Nuremberg Code Principle #1 makes clear that the recipient of a medical treatment “should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension … as to enable him to make an … enlightened decision.” And that, “there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment … and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.” Were vaccine recipients provided such “knowledge and comprehension” about the effects before getting the jab?

In an in-depth research article I published on April 28, 2020, I exposed that “an April 16th Press Release on the Gates-funded Moderna’s website announced that ‘no commercial product using mRNA technology has been approved before and the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1273 has not yet been established.’”

In other words, human beings would become the experimental guinea pigs for the ultimate “safety and efficacy of mRNA” technology.

According to Smithsonian Magazine, “in July [2020], both Moderna and Pfizer/bioNTech began studies of their mRNA vaccines in about 30,000 people apiece, hoping to show their vaccines are safe in large groups.” Those results were, supposedly, released in November — a mere four months after the first studies in humans began. Seems awfully convenient that the testing was deemed adequate for mass distribution just as the waning immunity now known was about to become discovered.

When the left uses Saul Alinsky’s Tactic #9, “the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself,” anything is possible. And so it was with the rush to get a COVID-19 vaccine into the arms of human test subjects paralyzed by the fear from the left’s lies that there were no other treatment alternatives available.

Experts agreed even then that the normal time to bring a vaccine to market safely is 10-15 years as Heritage.org reported in April 2020. They stressed that, “[b]efore a vaccine can be tested in humans, it’s investigated carefully in a lab. This step usually involves animal trials, but regulators have allowed researchers to skip this step to fast-track development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.”

A third point in Principle #1 of the Nuremberg Code states that “the person involved should … be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” For those who understand the deception behind the vaccine’s rush to market, our final outrage is our looming loss of freedoms.

Those who have done our research trust no Facebook bought-and-paid-for fact-checker to convince us that these experimental jabs are safe or deserve the Emergency Use Authorization designation they’ve been so hastily given.

Perhaps fact-checkers should instead focus on the tenets of the Geneva Convention which state that the rules pertain to war-time atrocities. Then the argument becomes whether we are being experimented on during a state of war. Now that’s an argument worth having and will be explored in my article next week. Stay tuned!


Cathi Chamberlain, aka The Deplorable Author and founder of The Deplorable Report, is a four-time start-up business owner, published author of a self-help book featured on CNN worldwide and owner of the nation’s first all-female construction company. She is a sought-after political speaker and has been a regular contributor on the Salem Media Radio Network. In her book, “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism,” Cathi heavily references Saul Alinsky’s 1970’s blockbuster book, “Rules for Radicals.” She is currently on her “Florida Deplorable Book Tour.” Contact her for your next speaking event at [email protected]


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Learn How to
Decode the Media.
Download your free copy now!

3 Keys to Decoding the Media by Rod Thomson

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.