The ‘Doctors Trial’ (USA vs Karl Brandt) during the Nuremberg Trials following WW2, which established the Nuremberg Code regulating the ethics of medical intervention
“Some people might not be familiar with the verb “to dissemble”, but we all need to become familiar with it, because there is a lot of dissembling going on.
It basically means to deliberately conceal something or obfuscate it, so that one’s attention is misdirected or deflected from whatever the Dissembler wishes to obscure. Like the truth. And in this case, the truth about the Nuremberg Code and the protection it provides us from accepting any forced medical procedure or therapy at all.
Together with casting doubts and slander, dissembling is one of the chief tools in the propagandist toolbox.
A few days ago, I wrote an article explaining that forced vaccinations are a violation of the Nuremberg Code. Note the word, “forced”. In fact, any forced medical procedure or therapy is against the Nuremberg Code.
All medical procedures and therapies must have fully informed and freely given consent, to the greatest extent possible – which means that people who are conscious and able to decide things for themselves remain in control of their medical destiny.
It’s only when you are in desperate straits and unconscious that medical professionals are allowed to step in and make decisions “for you”.
This is all cut and dried and set in cement since the 1940s, but now we have people trying to dissemble it and water it down and reinterpret the Nuremberg Code as applying only to medical experimentation.
It does not.
The Code itself explains exactly what it applies to, and even though the cases giving rise to the Code arose from medical experiments in Concentration Camps and involved forced medical experimentation on unwilling subjects, the core of the Nuremberg Code rose to the occasion and outlawed all kinds of forced medical procedures and therapies. Not just experimental procedures.
Any medical procedure or therapy that you don’t want to participate in, you have the full, free, and unprejudiced right to refuse. Period.
Go back and read Article 6, Sections 1 and 3, of the Nuremberg Code for yourselves.
Don’t take anyone else’s word for it. Not even mine. Be sure. And make good use of the information if anyone comes to your door with a needle in hand.
Another good one to quote in their faces is their own cherished Roe vs. Wade decision, the excuse for allowing abortion on demand. My body, my choice. That applies to every aspect of your body, what you take out and what you put into it, too.”
The Nuremberg Code
“Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us is to the effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
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.”