Nuremburg Code

The Nuremburg Code 1947

COUNT TWO--WAR CRIMES

9. Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendants Karl Brandt, Blome, Brack, and Hoven unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the execution of the so-called "euthanasia" program of the German Reich in the course of which the defendants herein murdered hundreds of thousands of human beings, including nationals of German-occupied countries. This program involved the systematic and secret execution of the aged, insane, incurably ill, of deformed children, and other persons, by gas, lethal injections, and diverse other means in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums. Such persons were regarded as "useless eaters" and a burden to the German war machine. The relatives of these victims were informed that they died from natural causes, such as heart failure. German doctors involved in the "euthanasia" program were also sent to Eastern occupied countries to assist in the mass extermination of Jews.

COUNT THREE--CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

11. Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments, without the subjects' consent, upon German civilians and nationals of other countries, in the course of which experiments the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. The particulars concerning such experiments are set forth in paragraph 6 of count two of this indictment and are incorporated herein by reference.

Source: Professor Douglas O. Linder, The Nuremberg Trials: The Doctors Trial

Origin of the Nuremburg Code

[UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM NOTE]
On August 19, 1947, the judges of the American military tribunal in the case of the USA vs. Karl Brandt et. al. delivered their verdict. Before announcing the guilt or innocence of each defendant, they confronted the difficult question of medical experimentation on human beings. Several German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from previous American or German ones. Furthermore they showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation. This argument worried Drs. Andrew Ivy and Leo Alexander, American doctors who had worked with the prosecution during the trial. On April 17, 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes which outlined six points defining legitimate research. The verdict of August 19 reiterated almost all of these points in a section entitled "Permissible Medical Experiments" and revised the original six points into ten. Subsequently, the ten points became known as the "Nuremberg Code." Although the code addressed the defense arguments in general, remarkably none of the specific findings against Brandt and his codefendants mentioned the code. Thus the legal force of the document was not well established. The uncertain use of the code continued in the half century following the trial when it informed numerous international ethics statements but failed to find a place in either the American or German national law codes. Nevertheless, it remains a landmark document on medical ethics and one of the most lasting products of the "Doctors Trial."

Source: Link:Nuremburg/USHMM/Code

Nuremburg Code - Full Text

The text of the 10-point Nuremburg Code can be obtained from many sources. Two are listed below:-

1. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
2. The BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL No 7070 Volume 313: Page 1448, 7 December 1996.
   This edition apparently focussed on the Nuremburg Trials. Extracts such as the text of the Nuremburg Code 1947 are linked from many websites. One of those is The Global Health Network where the .pdf file can be viewed or downloaded at https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2011/04/BMJ_No_7070_Volume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf.
   For convenience, this same extract can be viewed here Nuremburg Code/Text

The Nuremburg Code and COVID-19 Vaccines

The SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged in late 2019 and the COVID-19 pandemic spread world-wide during 2020. Vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus became available in 2021, beginning with the Astrazeneca vaccine in the UK (December 2019), closely followed by mRNA vaccines by Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna in the USA, and then several others. All of these vaccines were developed and tested in a short time - the usual process can take 10 years - and consequently there have been no long-term studies. In the US, the mRNA vaccines were fast-tracked under a program called Operation Warp Speed and gained Emergency Use Approval because the COVID-19 pandemic was perceived to be a real and present danger. Other countries do not have the same approval system as the US so the term EUA is not used outside the USA. Some of the terminology used for fast-tracked approvals is listed here:-

• USA: Emergency Use Approval (EUA)
• UK: Regulation 174 authorisation for temporary supply This is not a marketing authorisation, but this temporary authorisation grants permission for the medicine to be used for active immunisation of individuals aged [18 years and older] for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The age range varied depending on the product and intended usage.
• Australia: Provisional Approval

Vaccines were initially rolled-out to the most vulnerable persons, aged-care residents eg., but as 2021 progressed the vaccine rollout became more mandatory and harder to refuse. Although vaccine recipients sign a consent form, 'of their own free will', it is clear that a majority of workers in many countries have been coerced, a system of 'medical apartheid' now exists in many countries as un-vaccinated people are restricted in movement, employment or access to services like public transport, and as a consequence of this 'government over-reach' un-vaccinated people and supporters all around the world are protesting that their human rights have been violated, their personal bodily integrity is affected by the mandates, and that the vaccines are experimental and thus the government officials are in violation of the Nuremburg Code.

Fact checkers and the government officials themselves of course deny that violations of the Nuremburg Code have occurred. Some, including Court Judges, have gone so far as to say that the suggestion is an insult as there is no comparison between the subjects of medical experimentation in Nazi Germany who were held as prisoners in concentration camps and had absolutely no control over the actions of the 'doctors', and those who can voluntarily walk into a vaccination centre and freely decide whether or not to get an injection. No-one is being forced, at least not in most countries. And the same defenders of the current system are quick to say that the vaccines have been approved and are not experimental.

There are, however, lawyers and doctors who are progressing towards what they term 'Nuremburg 2' in which they plan to prosecute pharmaceutical companies, leading government medical decision and policy-makers, and many others who are complicit in a conspiracy to deliver dangerous products to innocent people throughout the world who have been deceived by propaganda to believe that these 'vaccines' are safe and effective. The same bureaucrats have censored debate, repressed health professionals by threating them with de-registration, controlled media content and ensured that the State has been upheld in every Court or Tribunal.

The reality is, regardless of the terminology used for the temprary approval for these 'vaccines' in the context of the pandemic, they are actually still in a Trial stage. The recipients are rarely, if ever, informed that by accepting administration of a vaccine they are voluntarily participating in a Phase III 3 Clinical Trial. Even health officials deny it. So virtually no-one has received 'the jab' with fully-informed consent.

Nuremburg 2

If you use a search engine such as Google^TM to search for a term such as Nuremburg 2 or Nuremburg 2.0 or Nuremburg Trials 2 it is most likely that you will get lots of results relating to the original post-war Nuremburg Trials and absolutely nothing about any current activity which matches those search criteria. However, alternate search engines such as Qwant^TM or DuckDuckGo^TM will show you that something is happening and therefore you should know about it.

To explain:- following the end of World War II the victors known as the Allies conducted trials, or military tribunals, to prosecute Nazi leaders who were involved in or responsible for the holocaust and other war crimes. This included disgraceful medical 'research' conducted using prisoners held in concentration camps. Many of those convicted were subsequently executed. A most important document from that period is known as the Nuremburg Code (1947) which stated ten principles relevant to medical experiments, and which have since been included in codes of medical ethics. For example, Principle 1 includes the statement "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential." Now move from the 1940's to the present: During 2020 as the Covid-19 pandemic developed there were some readily-available treatments which could have saved lives but these were suppressed and doctors were not permitted to prescribe them. And in 2021 when vaccines became available governments mandated that people get vaccinated. Withholding medical treatment is unethical, and coercion is not consistent with the principle of voluntary consent. When added to other issues like failing to fully inform people about the risks of the vaccines and possible reactions (other than injection site pain and other trivial matters) including serious illness or even death, it has become apparent to some experts in medicine and law that there has been widespread abuse of the Nuremburg Code. Their response is to hold those accountable through the International Criminal Court. The ICC is based in The Hague, Netherlands, but since the purpose of the prosecution is similar to the medical trials at Nuremburg the term Nuremburg 2 has been used as a descriptor. In some countries and on some websites this term has been trademarked and appears as Nuremburg 2^TM.

The list of resources relating to Nuremburg 2 is growing and a search will show some that are stated to be currently under development. Rather than list those that seem prominent I would recommend using the search terms at the beginning of this section, in a variety of search engines (not just your favourite one). And look for articles by, or related to Dr Reiner Fuellmich (excluding the fact checking websites which try to infer that nothing is happening and no-one will ever be held accountable).

Grant
January 2022

---

CoronaVirus Disease 2019 (caused by SARS-CoV-2)

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2

messenger RiboNucleic Acid

Emergency Use Authorization (USA)