12 April, 2021

Back in 2016, I undertook an Honours program in the School of Public Health at Edith Cowan University. The purpose of an Honours program is to equip students to carry out scientific research. However, before students are permitted to begin designing and carrying out their research projects, they must first learn about research ethics, to ensure their research meets the ethical standards required by civilised societies.

The field of research ethics as we know it today largely stems from the Doctors Trial, one of the Nuremburg trials which were carried out after the end of World War II. 23 defendants – 20 of them physicians – were accused of crimes against humanity, including horrific medical experiments on prisoners of war and inmates of concentration camps. 16 were found guilty and 7 were executed.

As a side note, many prominent Nazi doctors who perpetrated horrific crimes in the name of ‘scientific progress’ escaped prosecution; instead their appalling war service records were whitewashed and they were surreptitiously shipped off to the US under Operation Paperclip, to contribute to the development of aviation medicine and biological and chemical warfare agents in the medico-military-industrial complex of the world’s new superpower.

The most important legacy of the Doctors Trial (that is, if you exclude the biological and chemical warfare agents that have killed and maimed tens of thousands of people, and the advances in aviation medicine which permitted space travel – all courtesy of ‘paperclipped’ Nazi doctors) was the Nuremburg Code, which forms the basis of ethical research practice on human subjects, and of international law as it pertains to scientific research. Here are the 10 precepts of the Nuremburg Code:

The Nuremberg Code

1. 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, over-reaching, 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.
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 seemed 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 judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Australia, along with other supposedly civilised countries that incorporated the Nuremburg code into relevant legislation, is currently rolling out a program whose stated aim is to inject virtually the entire adult population (and eventually, perhaps, children as well) with experimental biological agents of a type that has never been used on a mass scale before.

Both the Oxford-AstraZeneca and the Pfizer-BioNTech “COVID-19 vaccines” have been granted provisional authorisation only by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, in recognition of the fact that neither product has completed its Phase 3 clinical trials. In fact, these trials are not due to finish data collection until 2023.

TGA acknowledges that its decision to grant provisional approval for these products to be injected into Australians – who are presently at an almost incalculably small risk of developing COVID-19 – “has been made on the basis of short term efficacy and safety data”. By definition, therefore, these particular products are experimental.

Even worse, the technologies used to produce both products are also experimental.

No mRNA vaccine – the technology used in the Pfizer-BioNTech product (as well as the Moderna product currently being rolled out, under Emergency Use Authorization [EUA], in the US) – has ever been successfully developed for human use before. Just let that sink in for a minute. Nobody yet knows what the effects will be of delivering into human cells messenger RNA that contains instructions for building a piece of virus, beyond the intended effect of inducing an immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

Serious neurological adverse effects such as Bell’s palsy are already being observed. Will there be long term adverse effects, for example on the offspring of women vaccinated while pregnant? Could the vaccine mRNA be incorporated into recipients’ DNA, as recent research suggests it could? Nobody knows… and by the time an long term effects are detected, hundreds of millions of people will already have been placed in harm’s way.

Viral vector technology, used in the Oxford-AstraZeneca product (and the Johnson & Johnson product, which has been granted an EUA in the US) was originally developed for gene therapy and cancer treatment applications. In these fields, it has met with mixed (and mostly underwhelming) results, punctuated by the occasional outright catastrophe.

Its record for infectious disease prevention is also mixed. The viral vector-based vaccine against Dengue fever (Dengvaxia) resulted in serious illness in thousands of Filipino children, with more hospitalisations and deaths occurring in vaccinated children than is typically caused by Dengue fever itself.

The only (apparently) successful application of viral vector technology to infectious disease prevention, prior to its incorporation into COVID-19 injections, is in Ebola virus disease, where a ‘ring vaccination’ strategy – that is, administering the Dengue virus vaccine to contacts of infected individuals – has been used in several African countries.

There’s a world of difference between applying experimental products to people who either have life-threatening illnesses, such as genetic disorders and advanced cancer, or those at immediate risk of infection with a pathogen as deadly as Ebola virus (which has an average case fatality rate of 50%) and applying them to entire populations, most of whom are at low risk of serious illness or death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. A person who is already dying, or at high risk of death, is generally open to trying riskier potential treatments than a person who is currently healthy, and expects to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Writing in the American Journal of Public Health, two scholars of medical ethics declared that:

It would be hard for any intellectually honest person to make the argument that this fundamental principle of voluntary, competent, informed and understanding consent is being respected in the current environment, in which workers are being threatened with termination of their employment if they do not accept an experimental product; entire populations are being coerced with the prospect of never being able to board an international flight or a cruise ship again, or to attend a concert or even drink in a pub unless they submit to being injected; elderly institutionalised people with cognitive impairment are being forcibly injected (take a look at the footage of military personnel injecting nursing home residents in Germany provided by a whistleblower, below, and tell me if that looks like informed consent to you); and minor children as young as 6 months of age are being enrolled in trials for experimental products for prevention of a disease that poses an infinitesimally small risk to them, supposedly for ‘the greater good’, despite a lack of evidence that any of these experimental products actually prevents infection with or transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

It would be bad enough if only the first, most central principle of the Nuremburg Code were being violated in the roll out of experimental COVID-19 injections. But in reality, not a single one of the 10 principles is being honoured.

With respect to the second principle, there are most definitely viable alternatives to the COVID-19 injection experiment, including offering effective early treatment to the minority of people who fall seriously ill with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and targeting COVID-19 injections to those at high risk of illness, who are capable of understanding and weighing the risks of natural infection vs experimental injection and choose to take the injection after due consideration of their personal risk-benefit equation.

The third principle is clearly being violated, as animal experiments (as morally repugnant to many people as they are) were either skipped altogether or are being conducted concurrently with human experimentation.

The shocking footage from the German nursing home demonstrates that the fourth, eighth, ninth and tenth principles are routinely not being observed, and the fifth and seventh are abused daily by both health officials and media ‘personalities’ who airily dismiss serious adverse events and deaths that occur within hours to days of injection, as ‘coincidence’ – violating every scientific principle, not to mention this clear warning in TGA’s Product Information document:

The sixth principle is being grotesquely violated, SARS-CoV-2 is not, and never has been, an existential threat to humanity. At just over 2.9 million deaths so far (using extremely faulty methods of certifying cause of death, which violate previous codes of practice) out of a global population of just over 7.8 billion, it will likely turn out to be roughly as deadly as the 1968 Hong Kong flu, which killed between 1 and 4 million people globally between 1968 and 1970, at a time when Earth’s population was just over 3.5 billion. Notably, no shutdown of the global economy occurred during the Hong Kong flu; in fact Woodstock was held in the midst of the pandemic.

Every death as a result of COVID-19 is a sad event, but the reaction to this problem is wildly out of proportion to its significance as a cause of human suffering and death.

In short, the roll out of experimental COVID-19 injections is clearly in breach of the Nuremburg Code. I can only conclude that the people involved in the process of approving these injections did so with full intent to violate the code, because they cannot possibly be ignorant of it.

Every person involved in conducting this experiment should remind themselves of the other enduring legacy of the Nuremburg trials: the rejection of the ‘Nuremburg Defence‘.

Nazi war criminals who attempted to shift culpability for their actions onto others with the excuse “I was just obeying orders” received short shrift from their prosecutors. Many people who are injured or who lose loved ones as a result of this unprecedented experiment might well be as unforgiving to those directly and indirectly responsible for harming them.

If you are overweight or have a chronic disease that puts you at increased risk of serious illness from viral infection, NOW is the time to take action on it! Obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and coronary artery disease are preventable and largely reversible with a wholefood plant-based diet and Lifestyle Medicine. Apply for a Roadmap to Optimal Health Consultation today; online and in-person appointments are available.