COVID 19 and Bioethics

Posted by

You have probably never heard of the “Nuremberg Code” (Nürnberger Kodex). Neither had I until recently. My wife brought it to my attention. She had been listening to a TV debate and one of the participants, a Jewish journalist, mentioned it, claiming that the way the US Government or governments in general handled the COVID crisis did not comply with this code. That made me curious and I looked it up.

The origin of the Code dates back to before WW II. Starting in the mid-1920s, German physicians, many of them proponents of racial hygiene, were accused of unethical medical practices by the public and by the German Medical Society. After the rise of the NAZI movement, the use of racial hygiene was supported by the German government in order to promote an “Aryan race”. Racial hygiene extremists merged with National Socialism to promote the use of biology to accomplish their goals of racial purity, a core concept in the NAZI ideology. Many physicians were attracted to this ideology and aided in the establishment of the National Socialist Physicians’ League in 1929 to “purify the German medical community of ‘Jewish Bolshevism‘.” There was also criticism. Dr. Alfons Stauder, member of the Imperial Health Office, claimed that these “dubious experiments have no therapeutic purpose”, and Dr. Friedrich von Muller, physician and president of the Deutsche Akademie, joined the criticism.

In response to this criticism of unethical human experimentation, the Weimar Republic (Germany’s government from 1919 to 1933) issued “Guidelines for New Therapy and Human Experimentation“. The guidelines emphasized the legal doctrine of informed consent. They clearly distinguished between therapeutic and non-therapeutic research. For therapeutic purposes, the guidelines allowed administration of untested remedies without consent only in extremely dire situations, but for non-therapeutic purposes any administration of untested remedies or experimental testing without consent was strictly forbidden.

However, these Weimar guidelines were rejected by Adolf Hitler. By 1942, the Nazi party included more than 38,000 German physicians, who helped carry out medical programs such as sterilization or euthanasia. Today, we know about the atrocious unethical human experiments conducted in the Concentration Camps, for example under the guidance of Dr. Mengele. 3.5 million people were sterilized in Germany during the Nazi regime. All of this was, of course, done for the “greater good” of improving the quality of the German population and ultimately the population of the world.

After WW II, the US, the UK, and the Russians conducted the Nuremberg War Trials against leading Nazis. One of the defendants was Dr. Rudolf Brandt, who was accused and convicted of having conducted unethical medical experimentation and procedures on humans during the war. Dr. Leo Alexander, who worked for the Prosecution in this trial, submitted a Memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes listing six guidance points for legitimate medical research on humans. When the judges delivered their judgement against Brandt and others on August 20, 1947, they had added four additional points to the Memorandum, which from then on became known as the Nuremberg Code.

Here is the text of the Hippocratic oath all physicians swear in its revised modern version:

“I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug. I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery. I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.

Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.”

One should assume that the Hippocratic Oath provides enough protection against abuse of medical practices. History has shown that this is obviously not so. And unfortunately, the Hippocratic Oath does not cover medical experiments. This is why the Nuremberg Code constituted a much-needed reinforcement of the principles of the Hippocratic Oath. It was titled “Permissible Medical Experiments”.

I will below analyze the COVID response of the US Government against the backdrop of the Nuremberg Code.

Code Point 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, 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 to another with impunity.” (Emphasis by me)

Remember how thousands of business and government employees were confronted with the alternative of getting vaccinated or losing their jobs? Remember how the military was coerced to accept vaccination? Remember how school kids were told they could not attend school if they were not vaccinated? Clearly, this was not “free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion”.

Code Point 2

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 COVID “vaccines” had not been sufficiently tested and were approved hastily without going through the normal approval process. They were inconsiderately appropriated from experimental labs and should have never been used on humans without proper testing.

I know what I am talking about. I once tried to obtain FDA approval for a technical oil that claimed to have human applications. The amount of testing I was forced to do was overwhelming and unaffordable and it would have lasted approximately 4 years.

Plus, the newfangled so-called mRNA “vaccines” were not even real vaccines. So much so that Webster’s had to change their definition of ‘vaccine’ to accommodate the new pseudo-vaccines.

In addition, there were other treatments available. We knew that Hydroxychloroquine , aka Resochin, monoclonal Antobodies or Polybodies, Paxlovid, Remdecivir, and Ivermectin etc. are potent and well tested treatments of COVID-type virus infections. But the government forbade doctors and hospitals to use them.

To make this clear: a treatment is a remedy that treats a diseased person. A vaccination is an artificial infection of a lesser grade that infects the body with a disease to jump-start the body’s immune defenses to enable it to better resist and overcome the real disease. Our government would not allow treatment with proven anti-virus drugs but insisted on the use of insufficiently tested pseudo-vaccines that were suspect of causing serious negative side effect and eventually death.

Code Point 3

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 will justify the performance of the experiment.”

Since the pseudo-vaccines the government insisted doctors must use were insufficiently tested, the entire complex of anti-COVID-measures constituted essentially a gigantic human experiment. Everything we knew about similar events, the Spanish Flu, The Swine Flu, the regular seasonal flu, indicated that mask wearing offers little protection and leads to bacterial infections that could cause more deaths than the actual virus itself. What medical history and science could clearly anticipate was that, at best, the cure would do as much damage as the disease. In the presence of effective treatments and in recognition of the ability of the human immune system to overcome virus infections, the anticipated results would not seem to justify the performance of such a dangerous mass experiment.

Code Point 4

The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.”

Seen the fact that the experiment was entirely unnecessary, it should not have been conducted at all.

Code Point 5

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.”

Death and disabling injuries did occur. The prolonged negative side effects of the pseudo vaccinations are only gradually coming to light. Damages to the brain, thrombosis, liver damage, kidney damage, hemorrhages, and necroses have been reported in post-mortem analyses of people who died after multiple injections with mRNA pseudo-vaccines.

Code Point 6

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.”

I remember vividly the conservative Fox talk-show host Lou Dobbs screaming frantically “It’s a pandemic! It’s a pandemic!”. He sounded desperate and had apparently swallowed the government bait hook, line, and sinker.

BTW, the term “emic” means as much as “confined”, “inside something”. For example, in anthropology, an “emic” view of a culture is the view that the carriers of the culture themselves have of their culture. It’s the culture viewed from within. Karl Mannheim would have called it its “ideology”. “endemic” means “locally limited”. “epidemic” means “widely prevalent” or “spreading fast but within a limited area or group of individuals”. That makes a “pandemic” an epidemic that spreads over a wide area or within a large group of people. It’s an epidemic that is everywhere.

Sounds scary enough but something that spreads everywhere can be something relatively harmless. The seasonal flu is certainly a pandemic, because many people worldwide get affected by it every year. However, it is not a threat to humankind, because our immune system deals with it effectively and few people die from it. COVID 19 was indeed a pandemic but it, too, was not the end of humankind. It affected mainly elderly people whose immune system was already compromised by other diseases like diabetes, obesity, cardiac and coronary problems, kidney diseases. Children were much less affected. Only approximately 5% of COVID patients over 60 died and only about 0.2% of people between 1 and 16 years old died from COVID (based on an Italian study).

Looking at current numbers, I must conclude that about as many people died from cure as died from COVID (i.e. not counted those who had COVID but died from something else like car accident, suicide, cardiac arrest etc.). The US Mortality statistics show that in 2018, i.e. before COVID struck, the US death rate was 8.686 per 1,000 people. In 2021, at the height of the pandemic, it was 8.977, i.e. 0.291 deaths per 1,000 more. Here are the death rates for the USA from 2014 to 2022:

United States Historical Death Rates

YearDeath Rate (person/1000)% Growth

The numbers for the COVID years are in red. While death rates show a steady upward trend over the years, it is obvious that the percentage in mortality has decreased, not increased, over the four COVID years. In other words: the pandemic has not only not increased our death rates significantly; it has slowed down the mortality rate! Where are the COVID dead? This was clearly not the plague off Vienna. So, what was the “humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved”?

Code Point 7

Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.”

Remember how the Democrat governor of the State of New York and the Democrat mayor of NYC sent elderly COVID patients into senior homes where they could not be treated adequately but were sure to infect others? Remember the respirator idiocy? Clearly not very remote possibilities of injury, disability, and death.

Code Point 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.”

Most of the medical personnel involved in the COVID response had no clue what mRNA “vaccines” really are and what their potential negative side effects might be. Most of them also had no clue what masks can do and cannot do. It took a while for the word to get around that typical medical asks do not catch viruses, because their pores are many times the size of a virus, but that they can become bacteria-breeding moist biotopes that can cause serious bacterial infections of the respiratory apparatus.

Code Point 9

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.”

Remember when people were told that they cannot leave their homes or that they cannot go shopping or congregate socially if they refused to be vaccinated or boosted? Remember the father in California who was arrested for playing with his son on a public playground? Does this sound like those folks were at liberty to end the experiment?

Code Point 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.”

Did Dr. Fauci ever sound like he had much concern about injury, disability, or death of the experimental subjects (us), if the experiment was continued? If one mask does not work, wear three – was his response. Master Fauci, in conjunction with Mr. Ghebreyesus of the WHO, may well have presided over the most cynical attempt ever undertaken by human governments to force their subjects into accepting draconian measures to dramatically curb their civil, religious, and economic liberties in the name of a drummed-up pandemic and for the greater good of controlling the climate.

I have to conclude that the measures implemented by our government to allegedly push back against the alleged COVID pandemic were a mass human experiment that aimed at destroying the very fabric of our culture and society. An exercise in obedience. I have conclude that it did not comply with the requirements of the Nuremberg Code, which has been codified in the US as Part 46 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations and as of 1976 also a part of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations, which has been signed by 173 nations as of 2019.

In 2017, Professor Markus Muller of the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, wrote a review titled “Medical Ethics in the 70 Years after the Nuremberg Code.” In it, he writes that the Code

“… constitutes one of the most important milestones in the history of medicine, providing for the first time a proper framework for research on human subjects. This milestone was not a voluntary, precautionary measure, but only came into existence in the aftermath of Nazi atrocities. The Nuremberg Code became a cornerstone of clinical research and bioethics.”

Have the anti-COVID measures of our government lived up to the bioethics benchmark of the Nuremberg Code? I think the answer is a resounding “NO!”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.