Legal Value and Scope of the Nuremberg Code: Letter to the National Academy of Medicine

Legal Value and Scope of the Nuremberg Code: Letter to the National Academy of Medicine

Me. VIRGINIE de ARAUJO-RECHHIA for FRANCE SOIR

TRIBUNE – The French National Academy of Medicine has set the agenda for the use of tests as well as “vaccination” through the implementation of the health pass (which has everything political and nothing sanitary), and has pronounced itself in favor of mandatory vaccination on July 19, 2021, the day of the presentation in the Council of Ministers of the draft law n°2021-1040 of August 5, 2021.

This one calls from now on “not to hesitate any more” as regards the acceleration of the campaign of injection of experimental genetic substances for the 5-11 years, in spite of the fact that Covid-19 is not a pediatric disease, according to many experts without conflict of interests, and that the side effects and deaths observed at the international level for several months of the “vaccinated,” of free will or of force, should on the contrary lead us to the greatest prudence in front of such a danger.

I quote the opinion of January 25, 2022 published by the National Academy of Medicine:

“The individual benefit must be clearly explained to the parents: it is an undeniable direct benefit by the induction of an immunity which will be stronger than that induced by the infection alone, or which will reinforce it, and will protect the children by reducing the risk of serious forms linked to new variants, in the short and medium term. The rarity of post-vaccination adverse events must be weighed against the existence of severe forms (PIMS, myocarditis, long Covid), the frequency of which is likely to increase with the increase in symptomatic cases currently observed in children.

The collective benefits of vaccinating children must also be recalled in several areas (school, family, psychological, social, …), as well as the strengthening of collective immunity, necessary to reduce the spread of viruses and limit the possible emergence of new variants.”

How can 135 full members of the National Academy of Medicine dare to hold such statements contrary to the conclusions of numerous international scientific studies and contrary to the reality of the facts?

In this regard, it is interesting to recall that one of the titular members (1ʳᵉ division – Pediatrics) of the National Academy of Medicine is Mr. Alain FISCHER, physician, professor of pediatric immunology and researcher in biology, appointed on December 3, 2020 by Prime Minister Jean CASTEX to the presidency of the Conseil d’orientation de la stratégie vaccinale (Vaccine Strategy Orientation Council) to the Minister of Solidarity and Health, i.e., the “Mr. Vaccine of the government”.

Already in 2016, when Madame Marisol TOURAINE was Minister of Solidarity and Health, Professor FISCHER chaired the “Orientation Committee of the Citizen’s Concertation on Vaccination”, charged with making proposals to respond to the mistrust of part of the population with regard to vaccines, and at the origin of an advisory opinion on the extension of the vaccination obligation among children. Professor FISCHER publicly defended this measure while the other members of the consultation were against it.

This work continued until 2018, when Mrs. Agnès BUZYN, then Minister of Solidarity and Health, decided to increase the number of mandatory vaccines for children under two years of age from three to eleven.

Mr. Alain FISCHER is also a member of the Board of Governors of the Rothschild Foundations (Management and Council).

It is also interesting to recall that one of the associate members of the National Academy of Medicine is Mr. Peter PIOT (4ᵉ division), appointed Director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine since 2010.

“Senior Fellow” of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation since 2009, he has received “gifts” from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 143 times for a total amount of at least $185 million, to which must be added the $170 million received from the Wellcome Trust.

Mr. Bill Gates, for complete information, publicly displays his eugenicist and transhumanist objectives, which he shares with Mr. Klaus Schwab (Davos, World Economic Forum, also financed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), Mr. Henry Kissinger, Mr. Warren Buffet, as well as the heirs of the Rockefeller, Rothschild, Open Society foundations of Messrs. All this globalist oligarchy considers that the “hyper-class” must invent technologies intended to enslave the subaltern classes, reduce the population and split with this majority of “sub-humans”, as Mr. Jacques Attali, who is very much aware of these projects, which are very little covered by the media, says so well (work Les clefs du XXIᵉ siècle, April 2000 edition, p. 497 f.).

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also finances the vaccine alliance, GAVI, which promotes vaccines in the world. Mr. Gates makes a considerable fortune with vaccines, much more than with Microsoft, as he says publicly. This foundation is in reality only the result of a tax optimization scheme.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a shareholder of Bayer, McDonalds, etc., which perfectly demonstrates its will to protect the planet and our health with benevolence. That’s why we can absolutely trust them, can’t we?

Mr. PIOT is also an advisor of the European Commission (Advisory Panel on Covid-19), personal advisor on Covid-19 of its president Ursula Von Der Leyen.

Mrs. Von der Leyen has a few questionable files. During her time as German Minister of Defense, some dubious contracts were signed with the consulting firm McKinsey. Then, it turns out that the traces of the negotiations of the contracts signed by the European Commission with Pfizer were unfortunately lost, that the husband of Mrs. Von der Leyen is none other than Mr. Heiko Von der Leyen, who occupies the function of medical director at Orgenesis, a biotechnology company specializing in gene therapies…

Mr. PIOT is a member of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, a member of CEPI, and a member of the Board of Directors of Novartis. (ER: We can also find his profile on the Rockefeller Foundation website.)

Novartis, which manufactures the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) and raw material products of the CureVac CVnCoV vaccine candidate for the production of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine doses. Novartis, which paid Mrs. Agnès BUZYN, former Minister of Health, in place at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, and who served as a consultant to BMS and Novartis. At the same time, she was a member of the Board of Directors and Vice President of the National Cancer Institute.

Given that the independence of the members of the National Academy of Medicine is not in order, and that these members do not seem to be aware of the scope of their positions, in particular of the risks they are putting the children of France at risk, here are my observations as well as selected excerpts from a doctrinal article entitled “The Nuremberg Code”, an inaugural penal jurisprudence in international health law.

Thus, the Nuremberg Code is the extract from the 1947 criminal judgment, which contains the list of the ten criteria used by the Tribunal to assess the licit or illicit character of the human experimentation of which the twenty-three defendants (mostly doctors) are accused.

The Nuremberg Code, based on international criminal jurisprudence, presents a list of ten criteria, the first six of which are as follows

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person concerned must have the legal capacity to consent; that he or she must be placed in a position to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, coercion, trickery, deception or other underhanded forms of compulsion or coercion; and that he or she must have sufficient knowledge and understanding of what is involved to enable him or her to make an informed decision. This last point requires that, before a positive decision is accepted by the subject of the experiment, he or she be informed of: the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the methods and means by which it will be conducted; any discomforts and risks that can reasonably be foreseen; and the consequences to his or her health or person that might possibly arise from participation in the experiment. The obligation and responsibility to assess the quality of consent rests with each person who initiates, directs or works on the experiment. This is a personal obligation and responsibility that cannot be delegated with impunity.

2. The experiment must be such that it produces results beneficial to the good of society, impossible to obtain by other methods or means of study, and not random or superfluous in nature.

3. The experiment must be conducted in such a way as to avoid unnecessary suffering and injury, both physical and mental.

4. No experiment should be conducted when there is a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments in which the physician experimenters also serve as subjects.

5. The level of risk to be taken should never exceed the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

6. Provisions must be made and means provided to protect the experimental subject from even the slightest possibility of injury, infirmity or death.

“In France, the appropriation of the “Nuremberg Code” by ethicists, who rediscovered it at the beginning of the 1980s, was built on a background of ignorance of the initial – and essential – legal character of this text. So much so that the version given by the National Ethics Committee in the appendix to its major opinion of 1984 on human experimentation is an adaptation that is far removed from the original text; published without source, this adaptation was taken up again as it was in 1988 by the Council of State in its preparatory report for the bioethics laws.

Indeed, the report of the Council of State prefigured the content of the law of 20 December 1988 (“Huriet-Sérusclat” law) and that of the bioethics laws of 1994.

This rediscovery was thus accomplished in a process of “deontologization” or “ethicization” that forgot the judicial roots of the “Nuremberg Code”. Michel Bélanger, with his trademark precision, had already described, in 1983, in his Droit international de la santé, the exact nature of this text: an international jurisprudence – and a penal jurisprudence. The doctors’ trial was not an ethics congress.

Among the criteria determined in order to define the licit or illicit character of experiments :

I. Regarding the subject of the experimentation:

“In the Nuremberg jurisprudential construction, the subject of experimentation is a role whose repertoire of action is the simple exercise of a double faculty: faculty to authorize or not to authorize on himself the act that is proposed to be carried out on him (and still he does not have the faculty to consent lightly: he is supposed to oblige himself to make an “informed decision”); faculty to withdraw, to stop the experiment on himself, at any moment without condition and without sanction. The condition of quality of the subject is, logically, that he has “the legal capacity to consent” – which excludes, according to the Nuremberg criteria, experimentation on children and on all legally incapable persons. (Various, very restrictive, arrangements have since been found in order not to exclude incompetent persons from the possibility of participating in biomedical trials).”

I recall here the provisions of Article L1121-7 of the Public Health Code (Article L1121-1 of the Public Health Code concerns research organized and carried out on human beings with a view to developing biological or medical knowledge):

“Minors may be asked to take part in research mentioned in 1° or 2° of article L. 1121-1 only if research of comparable effectiveness cannot be carried out on adults and under the following conditions:

– either the importance of the expected benefit for these persons is such as to justify the foreseeable risk incurred ;
– or this research is justified with regard to the expected benefit for other minors. In this case, the foreseeable risks and constraints of the research must be minimal.

The anti-covid experimental gene substances are currently all in phase I-II-III clinical trials. You can see that the current experimentation on minors is therefore perfectly illegal since it contravenes the said article of the Public Health Code.

“The consent of the subject, according to Nuremberg, is the consent of a volunteer who is free to recuse himself at any time, not of a contractor who is obliged to do so. Consent here is in no way mobilized within the framework of an exchange of wills creating obligations, but as a sine qua non condition of the authorization given to the experimenter to attack the physical integrity of others for the purpose of experimentation, such that this authorization is granted not yet directly by the law – as does our law of 1988, but by the “laws of humanity and the demands of the public conscience”, as much as by the “general principles of the penal law as they derive from the penal laws of all the civilized nations”. Consent, with its revocability, is the essential criterion for distinguishing, from the penal point of view, between the victim and the subject.”

II. Regarding the experimenter:

“The Nuremberg judges are careful to base the lawfulness of experiments not so much on dogmatic definitions as on pragmatic criteria of implementation: has everything been done by the experimenter to avoid actual or potential harmful consequences for the subjects of the experiment?”

“The experiment must be conducted in such a way as to avoid unnecessary suffering and injury, both physical and mental”; specifically, “provisions must be made and means provided to protect the experimental subject from even the slightest risk of injury, disability, or death.” If some level of risk is permissible, it must be proportionate: “The level of risk to be taken must never exceed the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

“The Nuremberg Code defines the following criteria of qualification and scientific and moral competence: experimenters must be “scientifically qualified” persons; their professional competence must be “of the highest level”, and not merely ordinary. Article 10, postulates a scientist capable of exercising “the good faith and prudent judgment required of him”. […] The excuse of submission to a superior authority – to the authority of the totalitarian State, in particular, an argument widely mobilized by the accused – has no place in this context; the experimental situation either meets or fails to meet the criteria and “all those who direct or participate in it” are responsible for it.

III. Regarding the experiences themselves:

“The experiment must be such that it produces results advantageous to the good of society, impossible to obtain by other methods or means of study, and not random and superfluous in nature” (Article 2 of the Nuremberg Code).

“The economy of risks and benefits prohibits the imposition of any risk on human subjects if there are opportunities to do otherwise.”

“The requirement of scientific prerequisites (prior animal experimentation and knowledge of the natural history of the disease) in Article 2 is a reinforcement of this provision.”

“This historic decision reaffirms the universal character of the foundation of medical ethics, while at the same time imposing the idea that since universal consensus in these matters is no longer self-evident, it is up to international law to guarantee its content and effectiveness. The historic power of Nuremberg was to consecrate a particular normative framework for human experimentation, based on the idea that potential subjects are so vulnerable that their protection, and that of humanity in these matters, can only be ensured by imperative norms binding experimenters in the name of public order and, in this case, international public order.

IV. Concerning the solution provided by the judges in the Nuremberg trial :

Throughout the so-called Nuremberg Trial, the defense relies on the following points:

“Firstly, it develops, in a totalitarian State in time of war, there is no personal responsibility; it is the necessity of the State that substitutes itself for the individual will, and there is no valid consent, neither of the experimenting doctors, nor of the subjects; in these circumstances, the interest of science in the service of the defense of the Nation takes precedence over that of the individual.

Secondly and in any case, the defendants affirm, the nations in whose name they are judged have experimented and still commonly experiment in a similar way.
Judges gradually became aware of the inadequacy of the normative material provided by the Hippocratic oath to settle the debate on the universalism of the rules of medical morality.”

“Clearly, all these experiments involving brutality, torture, disabling injuries and death were conducted in complete disregard of international conventions, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, and Control Council Act No. 10. Clearly, human experimentation under such conditions is contrary to ‘the principles of the law of nations, as derived from the established usages of civilized nations, the laws of humanity, and the dictates of public conscience.'”

“The judges want to stick to “requirements that are purely legal in nature or that, at least, are so clearly related to legal issues that they … will help determine criminal guilt and punishment.” They rely on references to international legal rules (law of nations, law of war, customs between civilized nations…) rather than on deontology or ethics.
Through this channel, the judgment goes beyond the dialectic of the relative and the universal in which the debate on the Hippocratic oath was locked: it assumes the axiological content of universalist medical ethics (in the reading that the anti-totalitarian democracies make of it); it “recasts” it through international law.

In the end, the Nuremberg judgment consecrates the personal obligations that flow from the Hippocratic oath, but it makes them flow from international law rather than from a vague universality. Therein lies the great innovation of Nuremberg, which purely ethicist readings struggle to recognize.”

“Nuremberg is an inaugural moment in the construction of a normative movement that will not cease to be international (World Medical Assembly Declaration of Helsinki, 1964; New York Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 7, 1966) and from which national regulations derive, such as, in France, the 1988 law on the protection of persons who undergo biomedical research.”

Selected excerpts from: Philippe Amiel, François Vialla. The “Nuremberg Code”, an inaugural criminal case law in international health law. Emmanuel Cadeau, Éric Mondielli, François Vialla. Mélanges en l’honneur de Michel Bélanger: modernité du droit de la santé, LEH (Les éditions hospitalières), pp.573-585, 2015, 978-2-84874-590-9. hal-01248128.

As such, we would also quote Mary Holland, a professor of Law at New York University, who challenged members of the United Nations in May 2016 on vaccine policies that violate the Nuremberg Code:

“The United Nations, as well as the international community, has an obligation to respect human rights related to vaccination.”

“The Nuremberg Code states that the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights echoed this prohibition against involuntary experimentation in its 1966 text which states: no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”

This prohibition is now so universally recognized that some courts and scholars have considered this right to informed consent as a matter of customary international law.

************

Source

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.