The Nuremberg Code, Vaccines, and Consent

The Nuremberg Code:

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, over-reaching, 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.

https://history.nih.gov/display/history/Nuremberg+Code

Informed Consent for Vaccines

NVIC maintains that vaccination is subject to the same medical informed consent ethic that guides modern medicine today because vaccination is a medical intervention performed on a healthy person that has the inherent ability to result in the injury or death of that healthy person. In consideration of the fact that there can be no guarantee that the deliberate introduction of killed or live microorganisms into the body of a healthy person will not compromise the health or cause the death of that person either immediately or in the future; and with very few predictors having been identified by medical science to give advance warning that injury or death may occur; and with no guarantee that the vaccine will indeed protect the person from contracting a disease; and in the absence of adequate scientific knowledge of the way vaccines singly or in combination act in the human body at the cellular and molecular level, vaccination is a medical procedure that could reasonably be termed as experimental each time it is performed on a healthy individual.

https://www.nvic.org/vaccine-memorial/informed-consent.aspx

My Two Cents

The Nuremberg code talks about “experimental” things. Someone could argue that vaccines are not experimental, they are tested and approved. I believe that they still fall under experimental, as the quote above eloquently stated, but for the sake of argument, supposing that they do not, there is another logical hurdle that must be cleared:

The purpose of “informed consent” is so that someone can avoid unknown risks and side effects. After the experiment, the risks and side effects become known and documented. It would not make sense to remove someone’s personal right to grant or revoke consent after the risks and side effects are known and established. It is just as important, whether in experimentation or after FDA approval, that each individual is able to choose the medical interventions applied to their body.

All medical interventions have a risk of side effects, including vaccines, forced mask wearing, or taking vitamins. ALL interventions. Each individual must decide for themselves the risk they are willing to take on.

If that right is stolen from anyone then they have become the property of whomever made that decision on their behalf. If the government has forced someone to to accept a medical intervention then they have entered into a medical tyranny.