Expanatory Note by Stephen Duffy
We live in the post-2020 era where mass medical experimentation has taken
place worldwide in the wake of a public panic generated by media corporations
which lent full support the mass house arrests and the mandating of drugs which
were called vaccines which were neither safe, nor effected as those the media
corporations gave voice to falsely claimed.
Since the end of World War II where the Nazi's who ruled Germany since they
took power in 1933, the Nuremberg Code has been seen as the most authorative
document in determinning whether medical practices were being carried out in a
way which humanity would consider to be moral. The experiments that Nazi doctors
had been engaged in against the working population of Germany were not historic
firsts in these kind of practices, as many vitims of the transatlantic slave
trade were also subjected to medical experimentation in fashions one might decry
when looking at the experiments carried out on animals to ensure consumers are
not harmed by their consumer products. There have even been cases of concealled
medical experiments which happenned in the era between 1945, when the allies
defeated the fascists and 2020 when the "no jab, no job" policies operating in
countries worldwide came to be "just a thing".
The 2020 gave us all clear vision about the degree to which respect for human
dignity had fallen as clear and unambiguous violations of the Nuremberg Code
were now barely concealled by attitudes of propagandists telling the people they
did not have to look to know the propagandists were telling the truth. If it all
seemed a bit unlikely that their own governments would be acting like fascists
then it was just the imagination of those ... who had actually been concerned
about the degraded human rights situation in the world and were being denounced
as "nutty conspiray theorists" and misrepresented as the very xenophobes that
the fascists truly were.
The Nuremberg Code is provided here verbatim as a once highly respected
document that even the British Medical Journal published as a standard that
must be adhered to by physicians in the UK as late as 1996. We seem to live in
a kind of post-truth era where the guilty refuse to understand their own guilt
while pointing any minor criticism agains the victims of their human rights
abuses in the hope that the Nuremberg Code and the victory which was World War
II will be a forgotten memory in an era where human rights will be respected by
the rule of law, except when they aren't. Stephen Duffy, the websites author
hopes this new post-human rights era will be stopped in its progression and
presents here the Nuremberg Code as was just a normal and well known document
by everyone and anyone which was utterly trashed by the advocates of the crimes
against humanity which happenned worldwide in 2020.
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to 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:
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, overreaching,
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 toanother with impunity.
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.
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 justify the
performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary
physical and mental suffering and injury.
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.
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.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to
protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury,
disability or death.
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.
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 seems to him to be
impossible.
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 experimentalsubject.
