The first mandate listed in the “Permissible Medical Experiments” section of volume II of the Trials of War Criminals reads: “[t]he voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” That’s it then, right? Shouldn’t Biden be locked up as a war criminal? After all, he’s been calling for forced vaccines. 

During Military Tribunals in Germany following World War II, Nazi doctors and medical administrators were tried for atrocities committed during the holocaust. To prevent a repeat of the evils perpetrated on humanity, the judges outlined 10 conditions for permissible medical experiments in the future that became known as the Nuremberg Code. 

Its adoption into the 1949 Geneva Conventions later gave the 1947 Code international standing. Breaking from the Convention’s intent presumably constitutes a war crime. Thus, with COVID jabs being forced on unwilling participants, we ought to at least understand what the Nuremberg Code is about.

Some fact-checkers, as is often the case, are basing their Nuremberg Code vaccine arguments on opinion. Take USA Today, for example. Once a respected news organization, they’ve now jumped on the lucrative bandwagon of having in-house “fact-checkers.” If any of your Facebook posts have ever been banned, there’s a good chance USA Today was responsible. 

An article published on August 10, 2021, attempts to discredit one FB user’s claim that forced vaccinations go against the Nuremberg Code. USA Today’s fact-checkers state that “[t]he claim that ‘forced’ vaccines are against the Nuremberg Code is FALSE, based on our research.” Notice they aren’t discrediting that vaccines are covered under the Code. Simply that the current forced vaccines aren’t illegal.

That claim might have held water until one reads the disclaimer at the end of the article: “Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.” Oh, no bias there!

Putting that aside, let’s dissect the USA Today fact-checkers ‘evidence.’

Their “research” led to their assumption that the “Nuremberg Code addresses human experimentation, not vaccines approved for emergency use.” Fair enough. But where is their proof that “Americans who get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not part of an experiment.” Or that “[t]he vaccines have been tested in clinical trials and found to be safe and effective.” I couldn’t find it.

Their main source justifies the record speed of the vaccine by the “layering” of trials made possible by advancements in technology, an abundance of funding, and the relaxing of bureaucratic regulations. That’s all well and good, but nowhere does the fact-checkers’ source state that the resulting vaccine was proven safe and effective.

My research has discovered quite the opposite.

While the jabs were indeed approved for emergency use authorization, such status is normally reserved when no other treatments are available. Per the FDA’s own website, they “may authorize unapproved medical products … to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions … when … there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.” (Emphasis mine.)

COVID-19 did have several “adequate, approved, and available alternatives.” And those had proven track records by the time the vaccine’s EUA was approved. Had they not been highly censored by social media and our own government agencies, including Facebook and Dr. Fauci’s NIAID, those alternatives would have saved many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more lives than they already had as has been proven by experts brave enough to publish their findings.

Dr. Peter McCullough, for example, known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers on COVID, is just one of many. Today his work remains the most downloaded and utilized papers throughout the pandemic.

In an interview with Tucker Carlson of FOX News, McCullough, who has treated thousands of COVID patients, told Carlson there’s “been a global oblivion” to the idea of treating patients with COVID-19. There are effective outpatient treatments, “including monoclonal antibodies such as Regeneron and intracellular anti-infectives including hydroxychloroquine.” He is also a big proponent of Ivermectin.

McCullough added: “What frustrated me, was in the media cycle, all we heard about was reducing spread, and then later on vaccination. We never actually heard about treating sick patients. Had there been more of a focus on treating sick patients, early treatment could have prevented up to 85% of COVID deaths.” Instead, he said, there’s an “incredible suppression of early treatment in the medical literature.”

He’s hardly the only one speaking out. America’s Frontline Doctors, the mRNA inventor of the vaccine technology Dr. Robert Malone, Nobel Prize nominee and world-renowned “Physician of Presidents” Dr. Vladimir Zelenko have all risked their livelihoods and fortunes to get the truth out. Heavily censored and ridiculed, these whistleblowers have collectively saved scores of people with their successful treatment plans.

So just because social media controllers have shaped the narrative that treatments are non-existent doesn’t make it true. And simply because vaccines have been approved for EUA means little when the very alternative, and inexpensive, treatments for COVID have been banned. 

Which returns us to the original question of whether the vaccines are experimental, as the above-mentioned fact-checkers deny.

Nuremberg Code Principle #1 makes clear that the recipient of a medical treatment “should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension … as to enable him to make an … enlightened decision.” And that, “there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment … and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.” Were vaccine recipients provided such “knowledge and comprehension” about the effects before getting the jab?

In an in-depth research article I published on April 28, 2020, I exposed that “an April 16th Press Release on the Gates-funded Moderna’s website announced that ‘no commercial product using mRNA technology has been approved before and the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1273 has not yet been established.’”

In other words, human beings would become the experimental guinea pigs for the ultimate “safety and efficacy of mRNA” technology.

According to Smithsonian Magazine, “in July [2020], both Moderna and Pfizer/bioNTech began studies of their mRNA vaccines in about 30,000 people apiece, hoping to show their vaccines are safe in large groups.” Those results were, supposedly, released in November — a mere four months after the first studies in humans began. Seems awfully convenient that the testing was deemed adequate for mass distribution just as the waning immunity now known was about to become discovered.

When the left uses Saul Alinsky’s Tactic #9, “the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself,” anything is possible. And so it was with the rush to get a COVID-19 vaccine into the arms of human test subjects paralyzed by the fear from the left’s lies that there were no other treatment alternatives available.

Experts agreed even then that the normal time to bring a vaccine to market safely is 10-15 years, as Heritage.org reported in April 2020. They stressed that, “[b]efore a vaccine can be tested in humans, it’s investigated carefully in a lab. This step usually involves animal trials, but regulators have allowed researchers to skip this step to fast-track development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.”

A third point in Principle #1 of the Nuremberg Code states that “the person involved should … be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” For those who understand the deception behind the vaccine’s rush to market, our final outrage is our looming loss of freedoms.

Those who have done our research trust no Facebook bought-and-paid-for fact-checker to convince us that these experimental jabs are safe or deserve the Emergency Use Authorization designation they’ve been so hastily given.

Perhaps fact-checkers should instead focus on the tenets of the Geneva Convention, which state that the rules pertain to war-time atrocities. Then the argument becomes whether we are being experimented on during a state of war. Now that’s an argument worth having and will be explored in my article next week.