Germany to Break Nuremberg Code with Mandatory Vaccination Programme Imminent


2021 sees the former fascist state planning to give experimental drugs to some of its citizens against their will 'for the greater good of the German people.'


Germany's new Chancellor, Social Democrat Olaf Scholz, has announced that his very-first order of business when he takes office is to make Covid vaccinations compulsory for what he described as "targeted groups".


Scholz, who is expected to replace Merkel early next month after his coalition deal with two other parties has been approved, said he would set up a new chancellery team to coordinate the coronavirus policy between the federal and regional governments.


In a chilling statement Scholz said "Vaccination is the way out of this pandemic, we will make vaccination compulsory." The new Chancellor made the announcement at a conference to present the deal he struck with the ecologist Greens and pro-business Free Democrats to form Germany's next government.


The German tourism commissioner told the German news agency DPA that compulsory vaccines were 'unavoidable' adding "In retrospect, it was wrong not to see that (compulsory vaccinations) right from the start." He went on to say: "For me it is politically no longer justifiable that entire industries, retailers, restaurants, clubs, bars and the entire cinema, cultural and event scene live in a state of crisis prescribed by the state for 20 months and are faced with great existential fears, while others...take the freedom not to vaccinate."


Tilman Kuban, head of the youth wing of the CDU, said: "We need de facto compulsory vaccination and a lockdown for the unvaccinated."


The announcement has horrified freedom groups across the world shocked at the speed and ferocity of fascism sweeping across europe. Freedom Campaigner Marcus White said that Germany and Austria turning on minorities within its own population for special treatment was 'particularly sickening' given their history.


The international community, who once held trials for German scientists who gave experimental drugs to unwilling subjects, now appear to be standing by and allowing their successors to do without hinder.


The World Health Organisation has also issued a directive suggesting that every country should consider making Covid vaccines mandatory. An organisation who should be upholding the Nuremberg Code, not destroying it.


The propagandists laughingly called 'fact checkers' have claimed that mandatory vaccinations of the experimental gene therapy drug do not break the Nuremberg Code, but when you actually look at the code you see that it breaks nine of the ten stipulations. In reality the code was set-up for EXACTLY this type of threat, as a direct result of what German scientists had done.


Extract from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) 1996

The judgment by the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg laid down 10 standards to which physicians must conform when carrying out experiments on human subjects in a new code that is now accepted worldwide. This judgment established a new standard of ethical medical behaviour for the post World War II human rights era. Amongst other requirements, this document enunciates the requirement of voluntary informed consent of the human subject. The principle of voluntary informed consent protects the right of the individual to control his own body. This code also recognizes that the risk must be weighed against the expected benefit, and that unnecessary pain and suffering must be avoided. This code recognizes that doctors should avoid actions that injure human patients. The principles established by this code for medical practice now have been extended into general codes of medical ethics.


The Nuremberg Code (1947)

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:


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.


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.


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 justify the performance of the experiment.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


Related Article

First published Jan 16

Germany To Build CAMPS For COVID-Dissidents

Germany is set to put COVID dissidents who repeatedly fail to properly follow the rules in what is being described as a ‘detention camp’ located in Dresden.


Camps. For dissidents. In Germany.


Germany is increasingly authoritarian when it comes to policing citizens during the pandemic. The latest move is to erect camps that will house what it deems repeat offenders. The facility will be based in Dresden, local authorities have confirmed to RT News who broke the story.


A spokesperson said access to the "pandemic hotel" pictured here won’t be that easy – you need to get a warning and a fine first. It’ll be up to a court to decide if you qualify for a stay.


Other countries around the world are doing the same. Last year authorities in New Zealand said that they will put all new coronavirus infectees and their close family members into what they described as “quarantine facilities.” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made it clear that anyone in the quarantine facility who refused to take a coronavirus test would simply be held there for at least 14 days. Whilst earlier this month, lawmakers in New York introduced a bill that would give the government the power to remove and detain “disease carriers” in quarantine facilities.

76 views0 comments