[changed title on 5-8-23] from "Are vaccine recipients being fully informed that they are part of an experiment?" to present. [end edit]
Vaccine companies may be immune from lawsuits for their vaccine (until and unless they are found out to have been involved in cover-ups, or fraud, in which case I presume companies and individuals could be held criminally liable), but what about crimes against humanity? Same goes for the censors on social media who have hidden the truth as delivered by world leading epidemiologists, virologists, and highly successful front line treating physicians
regarding up to 100% effective cures for COVID-19.
What about the doctors and nurses that administered the vaccine without fully informing the recipients that they are a part of an experiment/trial, of a vaccine that is not approved by the FDA?
Are recipients being told
the vaccine is not approved by the FDA?
"Doctors and Nurses Giving the Covid-19 Vaccine Will Be Tried as War Criminals"?https://brandnewtube.com/watch/doctors-and-nurses-giving-the-covid-19-vaccine-will-be-tried-as-war-criminals_7tNEBnZogbdlEXu.htmlEssential Facts Your Doctor Probably Forgot To Tell You about the Covid-19 Vaccine (29 Jan 2021)
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/essential-facts-your-doctor-probably-forgot-to-tell-you-about-the-covid-19-vaccine_rIafoCqUBaYMepz.htmlhttps://brandnewtube.com/@DrVernonColemanhttp://www.vernoncoleman.com/_____________________________________________
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical ExperimentsThe 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.
How many vaccine recipients are being fully informed of all of the risks, and told that they are involved in an experiment about which the long term consequences are completely unknown, before being given this experimental vaccine? 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.
The parties listed as responsible pretty much seems to suggest everyone that is involved is to be held accountable. In other words, the old defense that "I was just following orders" may not work any better in this case than it did for the Nazis. 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.Dr. Pierre Kory on Ivermectin as prophylaxis or preventative: "If you are taking Ivermectin you will not contract COVID-19. I repeat, if you are taking Ivermectin you will not contract COVID-19."
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=461.0
Since early treatment with HCQ and ivermectin have been shown to be up to 100% effective ever since March, and there are now a massive number of testimonies and studies published that have supported that fact for several months now, it would seem an obvious falsehood for anyone to suggest that cures for COVID are "unprocurable by other methods".
So are recipients being informed of this before they are given the vaccine?
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?board=2.0 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.
Not only not tested on animals (which was the point of failure of every other mRNA corona virus vaccine), but not even tested on elderly before mass distribution of the vaccine and experimentation began on the elderly. 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.It would seem we have only to look at the result of the door-to-door mass distribution of ivermectin and its success in Peru, to demonstrate the absence of need for a vaccine.
https://www.covidtreatmentoptions.com/00c52ad0.jpg 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 experimental subject."
