I have not thought about this much but this now is a matter of grave concern.
Jump to content
Posted 23 April 2020 - 11:12 AM
I have not thought about this much but this now is a matter of grave concern.
Posted 23 April 2020 - 11:21 AM
THE NUREMBERG CODE"DECLARATION OF HELSINKI"THE BELMONT REPORT
1. ANKITA PATEL
2. " Tuskegee Syphilis Study 1940s Radiation Experiments Begins - 1932 1940s - Nazi Experiments 1947- Nuremberg Code 1950s-1961 Thalidomide Tragedy 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1964 Declaration of Helsinki
3. " 1974 - National Research Act 1972 - Tuskeegee Study Exposed 1979 - Belmont Report
4. " THE Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research. " The Code was formulated 50 years ago, in August 1947, in Nuremberg, Germany, by American judges sitting in judgment of Nazi doctors accused of conducting murderous and torturous human experiments in the concentration camps.
5. " Voluntary informed consent " Experiment should be for the good of society, results not obtainable by other means " Experiment should be based upon prior animal studies " Physical and mental suffering and injury should be avoided " There should be no expectation that death or disabling injury will occur from the experiment " Risk vs. benefit " Protect subjects against injury, disability, or death " Only scientifically qualified individuals should conduct human experimentation " Subject can terminate her/his involvement
6. " Purpose: " It served as a blueprint for today’s principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research. " Because of its link with the horrors of World War II and the use of prisoners in Nazi concentration camps for medical experimentation, debate continues today about the authority of the Code, its applicability to modern medical research, and even its authorship.
7. " So, The Nuremberg code has no legal force behind it, and it would be erroneous even to credit it as the framework on which all future codes have been based.
8. " The Declaration of Helsinki (DoH) is, indisputably, a remarkable document. It is the mission of the medical doctor to safeguard the health of the people. " The British Medical Journal announced the emergence of the DoH in its 18 July 1964 edition with the following words: ‘A draft code of ethics on human experimentation was published in the British Medical Journal of 27 October 1962.
9. " Safeguarding research subjects " Informed consent " Minimizing risk " Adhering to an approved research plan/protocol
10. " A revised version was accepted as the final draft at the meeting of the World Medical Association in Helsinki in June 1964, It is to be known as the Declaration of Helsinki Attached to just over 700 words of the text of the original DoH. " In its 40-year lifetime the Declaration has been revised five times and has risen to a position of prominence as a guiding statement of ethical principles for doctors involved in medical research.
11. " Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly Helsinki, Finland, June 1964 and amended by the 29th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975. 35th WMA General Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983. 41st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kongng September, 1989 48th WMA General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996 and the 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000. WMA General Assembly, Washington 2002.
12. " Thus, Both the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki served as models for the current U.S. federal research regulations, which require not only the informed consent of the research subject (with proxy consent sometimes acceptable, as for young children), but also prior peer review of research protocols by a committee (the institutional review board of the hospital or research institution) that includes a representative of the community.
13. " The Nuremberg Code focuses on the human rights of research subjects, the Declaration of Helsinki focuses on the obligations of physician-investigators to research subjects, and the federal regulations emphasize the obligations of research institutions that receive federal funds.
14. " Due to the publicity from the Syphilis Study, the National Research Act of 1974 was passed. " The National Research Act created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. " The Commission charge was to identify the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human participants and to develop guidelines which should be followed to assure that such research is conducted in accordance with those principles.
15. " Carrying out its charge, the Commission prepared the Belmont Report in 1979. The Belmont Report is a statement of basic ethical principles and guidelines that provide “an analytical framework to guide the resolution of the ethical problems arising from research with human subjects.”
16. A. boundaries between practice and research, B. basic ethical principles, C. applications.
17. Term Term Definition Outcome Practice Interventions designed solely to enhance the well- being of an individual Reasonable expectation of success Research Activity designed to test a hypothesis; contributes to generalized knowledge Permits a conclusion to be drawn
18. " 1.Respect for Persons " 2.Beneficence " 3. Justice
19. " Treat people as autonomous (having the right to self-govern) agents. " Protect those who have diminished autonomy (vulnerable populations), e.g. children, prisoners, elderly.
20. " Do no harm, " Maximize benefits/minimize risks, " NOT an act of kindness or charity, but a concrete obligation
21. " Treat people fairly " Do not exploit those who are readily available or malleable " Fair distribution of the risks and the benefits of research based upon the problem/issue under investigation
22. " Consideration of the three general principles in the conduct of research lead to the consideration of: Informed Consent process Risk/Benefits assessment Selection of research participants
23. " IRB Members should consider the following…
24. " Informed Consent Process Information - Does the consent form provide all the information necessary for the individual to make a reasoned decision? Comprehension - Is the consent form crafted in language understandable to the potential participant? Voluntariness - Does the consent form and clearly indicate that participation in the research is voluntary? What additional protections can be in place to protect those with limited autonomy? How to determine whether one lacks the autonomy to make a reasoned decision?
25. " Assessment of Risks and Benefits Risk refers to the probability of harm; when considering risk, one should consider both the probability and the severity of the envisioned harm; while the term, benefit refers to something that promotes health, well-being, or welfare. What are the risks of harm to the participants (consider physical, psychological, social, and economic harms)? Are the risks justified? Can they be minimized? Can the research design be improved to minimize risk and maximize benefit? What are the benefits (to the participant; to society)?
26. " Selection of Subjects Is the potential subject pool appropriate for the research? Is it appropriate to involve vulnerable populations (e.g., economically disadvantaged; limited cognitive capacity) in the research or are they being enrolled because it is convenient or because they are easily manipulated as a result of their situation? Are the recruitment procedures fair and impartial? Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria fair and appropriate?
27. " Thus, The Belmont Report attempts to summarize the basic ethical principles identified by the Commission in the course of its deliberations. It is the outgrowth of an intensive four-day period of discussions that were held in February 1976 at the Smithsonian Institution’s Belmont Conference Center supplemented by the monthly deliberations of the Commission that were held over a period of nearly four years. It is a statement of basic ethical principles and guidelines that should assist in resolving the ethical problems that surround the conduct of research with human subjects.
HOW TO DECLINE A VACCINE…
POSTED BY: THE HEALING ORACLE TEAM 17TH APRIL 2020
With vaccines looking like the inevitable outcome of the coronavirus hype. It looks likely that what will follow is mandatory vaccines, digital ID chip implants and many other assaults on our freedom to choose more or less anything.
From a legal perspective it is a necessity to exercise your rights to decide. All you require is clarity and appreciation of the various risks involved. An understanding of the ingredients and their effects.
In fact, mandatory vaccinations are a direct violation of The Nuremberg code.
The Nuremberg Code (1947)
The Nuremberg Code is a set of research ethics and principles for human experimentation created as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War, when the notorious doctor’s experiments where supposed to have come to an end.
It established a set of guiding principles for the Right of the patient to be informed of their medical treatment options and to give their consent before any medical treatment could be performed.
It feels now more than ever that the mass experimentation on humanity is under way once more with enforced vaccines looking an inevitable thing for anyone that’s wants to do anything. But know your rights and be better prepared.
The Nuremberg Code is one of the most influential documents in the history of clinical research.
Code 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, 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.
Code 6 also states: The risks should never exceed the benefits
According to Article 6 of the Unesco 2005 statement on Bioethics and Human Rights.
Article 6, section 1: Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical interventions is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be expressed and may be withdrawn by the person concerned and at any time and for any reason WITHOUT DISADVANTAGE or prejudice. (caps mine)
Article 6, section 3: In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individuals informed consent.
So clearly sending someone for a mandated vaccine with zero information breaks this code of conduct.
We have put together a contract for everyone to take with them to the vaccine appointments. Something that will give you the right to politely refuse their services and refuse consent, but you need them to sign a clause before any of this begins.
Download and print one out for each family member and take it with you to the appointment. See the download links at the end of the article.
This clause covers several key points that both the medical practice and the vaccine administrator must agree and sign up to before undertaking such a risky procedure.
The clause covers some key points:
They must show a full understanding of the ingredients in the vaccine
They must honor their Hippocratic oath to first of all; do no harm
They must understand any risks and reactions from the vaccine
The need to prove their qualifications and show they understand the chemistry
They must also understand the MRC-5 within the vaccine
The personal and professional responsibility must be passed to the vaccine giver, who is operating under licence. We as citizens have rights under common law that apply in such situations.
You are perfectly entitled to create your own contract that must be signed before any medication is administered. It is your right to be made aware of the list of ingredients and to be given a full explanation of the risks involved from each, as well as the possible side effects of the total ingredients combined.
The administrator must also display an in depth understanding of what the combination of ingredients can mean within the human body. They must have a qualification in chemistry, or advanced chemistry for this.
There is nothing wrong with having your own private clause, as the medical practice and the doctors of the clinic should not only be aware of the Hippocratic oath, but also have signed up to it when attending medical school.
The Hippocratic Oath
Governs all of the medical industry and is something all doctors must sign when they attend medical school. This fact is so often forgotten, but this a rule that dates back to the days of Hippocratis himself.
The Oath also states: “And I will use treatments for the benefit of the ill in accordance with my ability and my judgment, but from what is to their harm and injustice I will keep them.”
There is an exchange of money here
You are using their services and the medical practice are being paid for each vaccine, so there is also an exchange of money as a result and so you have created a contract that must be included within this exchange.
Don’t forget, you also have the right to seek alternative views and also attend a different doctor for a second opinion if this one is unsatisfactory.
For when the inevitable time comes and Bill Gates and his buddies have the vaccines lined up and vaccines become mandatory, this is a way of protecting your rights.
You have a right to be informed and to refuse based on the information they offer.
You have a right to pass this responsibility on to them personally.
The nurse/ or medical professional must also understand the vaccine has MRC-5 in it (they all do, these are aborted fetal cells, or other forms of DNA) and if it does, you have the right to decline.
Also known as Medical Research Council cell strain 5, is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts, originally developed from research deriving lung tissue of a 14 week old aborted Caucasian male fetus.
The current manufacturing process uses cell factories to grow MRC-5 without the need for any fetal cells.
Also, you have the right to check if there is a possibility of an Iatrogenic Reaction (adverse reaction from multiple compounds or drugs interacting with each other) from the vaccine. When the nurse says “yes, it does” that can also be a reason to decline, due to the inherent risks of an Iatrogenic reaction.
This way, we can politely and simply decline their offered, or even mandated services.
The combinations of chemicals and mix of toxins and DNA are potentially harmful as a combination as well as individually and so you and your child have a legal right to be told what this chemical reaction could be.
They must take personal and professional responsibility for their actions. For what may arise from this injection.
The coronavirus has skipped many testing stages and is being tested on live humans already as we know. So the side effects to the vaccines will not be known for a long time.
You are essentially being used as a test guinea pig, you have the right to know this.
And so any complications as a result of this dangerous mix of chemicals and DNA, aluminium and other toxins must ultimately lie in their hands.
For the simple fact remains with guaranteed safety and zero harm then taking a vaccine would not be an issue. It is the inherent harm that is the pivotal point.
This is a legal document as soon as anyone signs it, it becomes legally binding.
If they are unable to sign it then the contract is terminated and you are free to leave.
Please see below for the forms to download and take along, one for an adult and one for a child.
“We stand together”
MD Fermin Celma
Edited by Patsy, 08 May 2020 - 10:09 AM.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users