O:H header
At the end of World War II, after witnessing the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps and forced human experimentation, some pre-eminent doctors of the time were brought together to come up with a code of ethics in human medical experimentation, to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. Informed consent, the core of the Nuremberg Code, has rightly been viewed as the protection of subjects' human rights, and while it was never written into law, it came to influence the creation of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights by the United Nations.

With the looming threat of mandatory vaccinations on the horizon, these documents become all the more vital and important for every citizen to be aware of their rights and what one can do in the face of medical tyrrany. On this episode of Objective:Health, we discuss the Nuremberg Code, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights and how these documents are more pertinent now than ever before.

YouTube sucks, so check us out on Brighteon and lbry.tv!

For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth

♥And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here.

Running Time: 00:34:30

Download: MP3 — 31.6 MB

Here's the transcript:

Erica: Hello, and welcome to Objective Health. I am your host today, Erica, and joining me in the virtual studio are Doug, Elliot, Tiffany, and behind the scenes is Damian. Welcome all.


Erica: Today, we are going to go out on a limb, yet again, and share how we feel regardless of the imposing censorship on critical information for your health and wellness. Today we are going to talk about health freedom, medical rights and the significance of the Nuremberg Code.

A brief history for those who are unaware, the Nuremberg Code is one of the most important documents in history on the ethics of medical research. In case you are unaware, right now we are in the middle of a massive medical research campaign. The Code was formulated 50 years ago in August of 1947 in Nuremberg, Germany by American judges sitting in judgement of Nazi doctors accused of conducting murderous and torturous human experiments in concentration camps. It is sometimes called the Doctor's Trial as well.

For those who have not looked over the Nuremberg Code, it's basically a 10-part document that, most importantly, talks about informed consent. It will be a big chunk of our show today. Going back, there was an excellent article that was published in 1997 by the New England Journal of Medicine called Your Personal Medical Rights: The Significance of The Nuremberg Code. I took some snippets of this article which talks about the American Medical Association and how doctors and judges applied these principles delineated in this code to the American Medical Association.

That document was called Principles and Ethics Concerning Experimentation with Human Beings, and that was adopted by the American Medical Association House of Delegates in 1946. The number one topic is "Consent of the human subject must be obtained. All subjects have been volunteers in the absence of coercion in any form. Before volunteering, subjects have been informed of the hazards, if any. Small rewards in various forms have been provided as a rule."

What do you all think about this Nuremberg Code and the idea of voluntary consent? Now, the discussion could be "People are giving their consent, they are willingly going and being experimented on" but are we being given all the information? Are we being told the safety concerns and the risks?

Elliot: It's not informed consent in the medical sense, because of all of the misinformation, the lies and the deception surrounding vaccine injury. No one is told about vaccine injury. In fact, anyone who questions the safety and efficacy of vaccines are plonked into the conspiracy theorist group and are immediately discredited. Instead of the term "conspiracy theorist" they are labelled an "anti-vaxxer". It's the immediate trigger-word that someone can be labelled with and immediately their valid points are often discredited.

So I would say that even though people are giving their consent it's not fully informed consent. So tThat raises the question as to whether these people would ever be giving their consent if it was truly informed consent and because there are lies and deception involved, I would say that what we are seeing and what's going on at the moment is in opposition to the framework that was laid out in the Nuremberg Trials personally.

Doug: I think that one of the keys is the part of the sentence where it says "without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion". That's the big one right there. How can you say that there isn't any coercion? They're saying that you have to stay locked up in your house, you have to wear a mask, you can't go back to work UNLESS you get the vaccine.

Then, there are the things that you see coming down the pipe: you can't get on an airplane, you can't travel, you can't see your family for the holidays. If that's not coercion, I don't know what is. Absolutely, people are being coerced into getting that, an "element of force" you could even say. "Fraud" another one. There is no fraud going on right now? I don't know, you could make a case against the way this vaccine is being rolled out just within this first stanza, this first section, of the Nuremberg Code.

Elliot: Because there is so little transparency around this, the section of the Nuremberg Code after the part Doug just quoted says "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." People are not given sufficient knowledge, they do not have good comprehension of the elements involved in this. In fact, there is so much misinformation that people are being led down the garden path and are being led to believe that this is wholly safe, that there are no side-effects and that this will protect them from the virus. As we discussed in last week's show, none of that is true.

Erica: Another interesting part which was in this article about your medical rights which was adopted by the AMA was "The experiment to be performed must be based on the results of animal experimentation and on a knowledge of the natural history of the disease under study, and must be so designed that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. The experiment must be such as to yield results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods of study, and must not be random and unnecessary in nature."

As Elliot was saying, according to our show last week we're looking to get the Covid vaccine to prevent the sniffles. It is not going to really prevent the disease, so this is a moot point. Why are we experimenting on people where they're not getting the information that is needed to make an informed choice? Yes, coercion is happening.

There are no animal studies that are being done. That is one of the things that we have been told from the beginning because of the fast-tracking. There are no long-term animal studies being done to back this up.

Elliot: With a 98% or 99% survival rate, is this really a necessary experiment? Is it necessary or is it classed as unnecessary? Look at the potential consequences, which are untold - no one knows - and then look at the necessity of that, if it was a 30% death rate, or even a 20% death rate then this would be a very severe disease and if there were no other kind of option to address it then you could understand why this would be classed as a necessity. If we look at the death rate, this is relatively mild. I don't think it is all that necessary, personally.

Doug: I would argue the same thing. The Nuremberg Code was used as a backdrop for parts of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights which was done by UNESCO, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. In their document, in article 6 - section 1 it says,
"Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be expressed and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time, for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice."
We can see the influence from the Nuremberg Code. The reason I'm bringing it up is because the Nuremberg Code hasn't been adopted as law anywhere. It is used as a document to base law on and it is seen as the standard to be used. It was adopted into this United Nations document which is more in line with how countries actually formed laws around this kind of thing.

That being said, I think that that last statement saying the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice should be able to withdraw, with all the hype which is around the possibility of mandatory vaccination coming in, that goes directly against what is being stated in this document.

Erica: I think that in the future we are going to see this Nuremberg Code being looked at more by people who know that it's wrong but who don't have the framework to verbalise that. Doug, like you were saying, it's not law, but as these vaccines don't get the uptake that they're hoping for. Right now we are seeing that 50% are going to be willing to take it and the other 50% are not. This is going to be going into territory where, unfortunately, it will have to be settled in courts of law which establish precedences on mandatory vaccinations. Of course, every country is different, and every state is different.

When doing research for this show we looked at another article called Plague of Liars: Nuremberg Code Outlaws Forced Medical Procedures, Which INCLUDES Mandatory Vaccinations. It says that "The Nuremberg Code makes FORCED vaccination illegal - along with all other forced medical procedures and therapies. The Nuremberg Code doesn't single out vaccinations or any other procedure or therapy - it outlaws all forced procedures and therapies with the same broad brush."

Unfortunately, this is going to be a long road, but I think part of the idea of medical health freedom and informed consent is just knowing that you don't have to be coerced into doing it. As you all were saying, we are seeing that already. Especially here in the US, it was like they did in Australia "no jab, no pay". You don't get your vaccine then your children can't get medical or financial assistance, your kids can't go to school.

California has been a really good example in the US with SB-277, the mandatory vaccination law. It's about four years old now where I think they were floating it to see the responses of people. If we make this mandatory, what are people going to do? You had people that left the state or who home-schooled their kids. Each state, at least in the US, is going to be an example of how this is going to come about, how they're going to coerce people into doing things against their will.

Of course, when you take away children, or food for your children, or financial means to support your family then that is coercion as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't seem like a tactic that's looking out for the health and wellbeing of Americans. We hear that "It's for your health and wellbeing. Wear the mask, it's for your health and well being." But not when you are intimidating people to get something that they may have serious doubts and concerns about.

Tiffany: There are already people that are arguing that the Nuremberg Codes do not apply to vaccination which is not true. The Nuremberg Codes apply to any kind of medical procedure, whether it's vaccination or not, even though they didn't specifically mention vaccination in the Nuremberg Codes. It definitely does apply, so don't fall for the hype and say that you can't use this. Just stand up for your rights when you absolutely can.

Erica: One of the things in there which really piqued my interest was in code 1 through 10. In number 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."

Do you feel like the people that are doing this are...

Tiffany: Scientifically qualified?

Erica: Yes.

Tiffany: I think that the problem with that is that the average person who does not have any scientific training themselves is not able to judge who is scientifically qualified or not.

Doug: Right.

Tiffany: There are people who listen to every word that comes out of Fauci's mouth as if it is gospel. I think there was a video floating around recently about Kary Mullis, the guy who invented the PCR test, who thought that Fauci was a complete idiot and absolutely didn't know what he was talking about when it came to anything concerning virology. Even Kary Mullis made the point that the average person can't know who is qualified and who isn't. Who makes that determination is the question. Who says who is qualified?

Erica: We see the banning of people coming and speaking out in opposition to this. Instead of getting balanced information, it'is a big red flag when people who are questioning this are censored from media outlets and platforms and that their voices aren't being heard. If you believe your product is safe and it's 90% effective etc. etc., then you should have no problem debating people that have questions about it.

Doug: Absolutely.

Tiffany: The media likes to act like the science is settled and every scientist and every doctor who is not a quack, every one of these people in the world all go along with the mainstream narrative on the whole Covid thing and the whole vaccinations being safe and effective thing. They make it seem like everyone who wears a white coat agrees that this is the case. But there have been numerous doctors and scientists all over the world who are speaking out against this and actually are filing lawsuits. It's not settled.

One thing that I thought was interesting as well was point number 5 where they talk about "No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur". That has already been violated, even though they're claiming that they can't make the conclusion that these people getting Bell's palsy, or these people becoming sick with encephalopathy, or these people who are dying, they can't say that it's because of the vaccine.

You have to investigate that and take it seriously and not just pooh pooh it or sue the person or say "don't pay attention to that, just ignore it." This other part here says "except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects."

Elliot: Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Tiffany: When have we ever heard of any of these scientists, these lead people at the top of these vaccine companies, or Dr. Fauci actually participating in experiments themselves? Never!

Doug: Apparently that's how they do it in China.

Tiffany: Yeah? I've heard that back in the olden days when there weren't all these big laboratories with all these million-dollar sponsors that, when people first started experimenting with things they would test themselves. They would test their family members! You don't see anybody doing that now!

Elliot: It's called "skin in the game", right? There was an author who wrote several books about it [Nassim Nicholas Taleb] who said that when you have skin in the game it is one of the ways to protect a society or a group of people against foul play and fraud. It would be wonderful if Gates and Co. were going to be the first ones to have this if they proclaim its safety. So realistically they should be the ones who are having this first of all. In many cases it has come out that vaccine scientists and other high levels vaccine advocates don't even have their kids vaccinated!

It's a similar kind of principle where these technocrats or these ultra-rich technology gurus do not allow their children to have computers or Facebook or whatever because they understand deeply, the potential ramifications and the potential negative side effects. The problem is they don't share that with the rest of the population, so they're disingenuous, they're sneaky and it's purposefully deceptive.

Doug: They're snakes.

Elliot: I say, let's jab them with the vaccine.

Tiffany: Obama, Bush, and who is the other guy? Some former president said they were all going to volunteer to have the jab on live TV just to increase confidence in people taking the vaccine. Of course we all know that they are not actually going to get the actual vaccine.

Doug: Not a chance.

Tiffany: It's going to be a saline solution.

Doug: Why would they risk it? What if somebody goes into a seizure on live television?

Tiffany: There was a government official in Australia who allegedly had the vaccine on television, but it turns out that the cap was on the needle. {laughter} Just the way that the person was administering the vaccine, from someone who has given injections before, the woman's shirt sleeve was hanging all over the needle and the cap was on the needle. Once they got called out, they said "Oh yeah, she had already had the flu vaccine previously but they just wanted to recreate the event for television."

Doug: Oh my God! They weren't even trying, that's lame. They could have at least done saline.

Tiffany: It could easily be faked so I have no confidence in watching somebody get a vaccination on television.

Erica: That goes back to that medical theatre. "We can all play a game to get the ones that we want to go along and not question it." You're right, it's disgusting.

One last part of the Nuremberg Code here is number 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 judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability or death to the experimental subject."

As we covered in last week's show, these things are happening now. We are told "it's not because of the vaccine" and that's it, move on and keep going along with the program.

Doug: They're even priming people too, as we covered on last week's show, when CNN was saying "don't worry if you see people dying after they get the vaccine, it probably wasn't because of the vaccine." They're getting you ready for it.

Erica: It's almost predictive programming. In the beginning of the year the World Health Organisation came out with the concern about vaccine hesitancy. Why would that be one of the top 10 concerns of the World Health Organisation if they had not known in advance that something like this would come? They had to start battling the narrative in January of last year, how would we know that this was going to become an issue? Now it's an issue.

For years we laughed that we're just this little health and wellness show who are trying to tell people about the issues with vaccines. It's not like we have a million followers, but lo and behold, we are in the middle of it right now. Years ago, we talked about mandatory vaccines and everyone thought we were crazy! "There will never be mandatory vaccines! There is nothing that would even warrant such a thing."

Now, we are living through it and we are seeing it. I'm really thankful for you all, and that we are here seeing it, and that we can follow along and we are not being duped and we are not put into that fight-or-flight response of thinking that I might not have my job in 2021 if I don't go along with this. I think the scare tactics are what they are going to start with and that is where we are at now.

Tiffany: I can only hope that the people who are going to be facilitating the rollout of this vaccine - the little people, not the higher-ups -- but your random, local health department workers, people who work at CVS, people who are going to be giving these vaccines out and making sure that they get to certain locations and going into the nursing homes and vaccinating all the residents and all the workers -- I'm sure they have very little understanding of the Nuremberg Code know that the fact that just following orders is no defence.

You can't just say "I was just following orders" or "I was just following what the health department told me to do" or "it's what my boss told me to do". It is going to come back to bite them hard if they don't take the vaccine themselves and suffer the consequences. Maybe that's what it is going to take for some people to wake up and realise that what they are facilitating is absolutely wrong and deleterious to people's health. They're going to have to live with themselves.

Elliot: Even though these principles have been incorporated into international law and human rights law, the United Nations, these are genuine laws which are there to prohibit or prevent this kind of activity, I'm not really holding my breath that citing this in a court of law is going to do anything to stop these guys.

Tiffany: No.

Elliot: We have seen it time and time again, at least in the last year. Law doesn't really matter. This is slightly off-topic, but in the UK you've got numerous cases of people trying to cite common law or trying to cite various laws which would prevent them from having to wear a mask and it turns out that they are still arrested and still given a hefty fine and some other kind of punishment.

It seems as though that at this point they are so arrogant that they don't really care about the law. They will just roll this stuff out. Wishfully think, probably aligned with reality, that the majority of people are probably going to lay back and accept it. We don't really get taught that much about human rights law, we don't necessarily know our rights and if there are not enough people who speak out against this, which there might not be, then they will continue doing what they have done for as long as they can.

I'm not hopeful that the fact that this is against the Nuremberg Code is going to do anything to change the trajectory of this. Something else might change the trajectory of this, but at least we can know and try to do our best to navigate this. I just find it very interesting to watch play out at this point.

We have been talking about this for so long and we have been reading about it and studying it for even longer, before we did the show. To see how it's progressed is not surprising to say the least. There are various elements that have surprised me, especially in 2020, but we have been talking about this for many years. We had a rough idea of how it might play out. It's amazing how by-the-book they are playing it.

This is why it's so easy to predict what they're going to do next because of the standard modus operandi. They will continue doing this towards their aims. I guess I'm saying this because this is going to be our last show of 2020: the year to remember. It's been a very interesting year to see all this happen as it has.

Tiffany: I agree with you, Elliot. I'm not holding much hope that a lot of this can be prevented through the court system because these people are all playing for the same team, ultimately. They have an agenda that they want to push forth and they don't care. If they don't care about human life, or people dying, or people becoming extremely ill from this, or people losing their businesses then they don't care about some laws written down or some codes written down on a piece of paper.

They can just shout you down, they can ignore you, they can defame you, they can make up any kind of lie and put out on mainstream media that you're crazy, you're a quack or you're a conspiracy theorist. I think it is going to take something much greater than the laws of the land to bring this thing down.

Doug: Yeah.

Erica: Being the true optimist that I always am amongst my fellow co-hosts {laughter}, I'm working hard at it, I think to wrap it up, each individual does have sovereignty right now. You do have the right to ask questions and if you are considering the vaccine you are allowed to ask for the vaccine inserts, you are allowed to have the side-effects explained to you by the healthcare provider.

That is something that you have a right to now, so I would say if you're considering it then ask all the questions you possibly can. They apparently tell you in the inserts all of the side-effects and what is in there. Right now it is up to each individual to stand on their feet and do what they can do to practice their rights over their body, their own personal space.

For those of us that don't like to be disagreeable, this might be an opportunity to be disagreeable and to apply the knowledge and ask questions. Other than that, I don't have a lot of other solutions right now. I have run out of possible solutions.

Elliot: Maybe there is no solution. Maybe we just need to sit back and watch the show and watch it play out and not be martyrs. Whilst I agree we need to exercise our rights, we also need to be cautious because there are various precedents being set right now and we don't want to be made examples of, because they are making examples left, right and centre.

It's hard to say how far they will actually go with this. I wouldn't be surprised if they take it all the way. We don't know how far that can go, so we have got to be clever as well. We've got to keep our heads screwed on and not draw unnecessary attention to ourselves.

Erica: Anyone else? You got any words of wisdom for us Doug, on this eve of destruction?

Doug: I don't know, I was thinking about what Tiff was talking about earlier about how one of the things that came out of the Nuremberg trials was that the excuse that "I was just following orders" is not acceptable. That is what ultimately came about from those trials. It doesn't matter if your boss told you that you had to do this. You as an individual, a human being, are responsible for your actions no matter what. I think just for all the medical workers and all these people, they should be reading the packet inserts, they should know what they are delivering to these people. They should know the potential for harm because "I was just following orders" or "I was just giving the shots like everybody else was giving" is not an excuse. It's not really advice for the general populous but I am thinking that the medical workers really need to get on board, to really be informed and understand what it is that they are doing.

Tiffany: Especially if they are one of those medical workers that won't take it for themselves. How can you refuse something for yourself yet give it to someone else? I don't understand that mode of thinking.

Erica: That's an excellent point. Well, thank you all for joining us. We have made it through this wild ride of 2020 and as Elliot said....

Tiffany: Worst year ever!! {Laughter}

Erica: A lot of it is just us observing and documenting what is happening because as things go down the memory hole, narratives change, history changes if you are not paying attention. We hope that we have done our due diligence and provided as much as we possibly can to our viewers and listeners. It has gotten us into a bit of hot water, but hey, that's why we're here.

We appreciate you all. Please "like" and subscribe and we will be back at you in 2021 for all the new and exciting events and situations that will unfold. {Laughter} Thank you all and have a wonderful day.