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 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

Get more stuff like this

Don’t miss a single act of Revolutionary Truth... delivered to your inbox!

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

9 replies on “How the Nuremberg Code Applies to the Vaccine”

It’s not scores of people saved it is 000’s.Strange that it was not considered safe to prescribe HCQ in the Lancet considering it was prescribed and taken by the british army in hostile climates.Presumably
those treated will be able to sue.Cathi,I don’t know if you have heard and understand the true history of this so called plandemic .There are 10,000 doctors,scientists of all types standing ready as witnesses with over 1000 lawyers,church dignatories,psychiatrists all sorts of people including holocaust victims who recall a similar scenario with the jews
of yesterday compared to the non vaxxed of today.They are being led by Reiner Fuellmich the prosecutor of VW and Bundesbank.It is not just
the main contenders who will be prosecuted but every person who knows full well that these vaccines are dangerous and that there were very good alternatives actually bought up by Governments from pharmacists and taken off the market so that sufferers were not able to have recourse to them.Not happy with just taking them off the market
bombs on factories and fires also destroyed a lot of stock.It started off as a money venture between a few of them and grew into something entirely different when venture capital became involved.It will all come out in the end and all these medical people will be paying compensation till they die.

Yes, totally agreed Michael. And, yes I know the history of the plandemic quite well. I was hoping to write a perspective not widely discussed. I thank you for your comments and hope you’ll tune in next week for Part II.

Ok you are against the COVID-19 vaccinations. That’s fine. That’s your liberties. Those are your rights. Does this apply to all the other inoculations? I’m guessing it does. And it plays right into the hands of the ROC. They have used and will be using bio weapons. George Washington mandated vaccinations. Are you fine going into battle against the ROC as an anti- vaccine proponent? After 9/11 all military members were required to receive the AVA vaccination. In addition we got the JEV vaccination, tetanus, pneumococcal and a bunch of other ones including the Small Pox. Many were never FDA approved. The AVA ever obtained formal approval.
You put your children and grandchildren in kindergarten only after showing that they had been vaccinated. The GOP anti-vaccine goal is to outlaw all vaccines. Do you feel good about sending your child or grand child to school knowing that at least thirty percent of their classmates won’t be getting any of these vaccines?

* Diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP)
* Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV)
* Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR)
* Varicella (chickenpox)
* Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
* Pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13)
* Hepatitis B (Hep B)

“The GOP anti-vaccine goal is to outlaw all vaccines”? What a moronic, fever swamp assertion. Stop embarrassing yourself.

A thinking person would ask why vaccines take 5 to 10 years to be tested and approved safe for humans, when all use the same general biotechnology, but this one was approved in months with brand new technology never implemented on humans on any scale. That’s just the beginning of questions you should be asking. But, well, that would taking independent thinking.

Your question: “Does this apply to all the other inoculations? I’m guessing it does.” Your assumptions couldn’t be more wrong. I am hardly an anti-vaxxer. I am, however, an anti-experimental-vaxxer. If you are okay with accepting non-FDA-approved jabs in your body and those of your children and grandchildren without knowing what’s even in it, that’s your right. Very wrong-headed and dangerous, in my opinion. The question I have for you is, “what wouldn’t you allow them to inject you with?” Perhaps we can continue our discussion in a year from now when the true results of this human experiment are better known.

I see many websites and doctors claiming the vaccines are not experimental because they are now approved, and side effects are well known. Then why are no one asking them about long-term effects? If they cannot provide an answer to that, the vaccines are experimental, it doesn’t matter whether they have been approved or not.

100% correct Axel. Thanks for your input. The study, as mentioned in my article, was ended after only four months, conveniently. Hardly enough time to derive any long-term results. Humans ARE the experiment.

[…] 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. […]

Comments are closed.

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.