On Vaccines: Is Gov Guilty of War Crimes, Namely, Medical Experimentation and Collective Punishment?

It’s not Dr. Josef Mengele experimenting on twins or WWII-era Japanese scientists vivisecting people without anesthesia. But one writer contends that our government’s attempt to foist experimental “vaccines” on the people is only different in degree, not kind. In fact, J.B. Shurk explicitly states that by making COVID-19 genetic-therapy agents (GTAs, a.k.a. vaccines) mandatory under threat of career destruction and ostracism, the Joe Biden administration is guilty of war crimes.

Writing at American Thinker, Shurk begins by quoting Biden stating, “We are going to protect the vaccinated workers from unvaccinated coworkers.” That’s a switch. Just over a month ago, CDC head Rochelle Walensky and other leftists insisted that even vaccinated people should mask up to protect the unvaccinated. In other words, the government claimed the unvaccinated were imperiled, not the vaccinated.

Has the virus since then decided to direct its wrath at those who’d dare “vaccinate” against it?

Shurk writes that whatever “the friendly U.S. government is injecting into people, it’s certainly not inoculating against or inhibiting transmission of the Fauci Virus if the ‘vaccinated’ must walk around in bubble-boy suits for the rest of their lives.” The message, he states, is that you just need to keep taking more shots — Dr. Uncle Sam will tell you when you’ve had enough.

Yet is “there some unwritten rule that we must endure fake vaccinations during fake presidencies?” Shurk then asks, after pointing out that our science/state marriage has helped create a situation where a “vaccine” is now defined as a drug that may or may not protect you against disease. You must, however, take it, anyway. Why? Because the government says so.

In fact, Revelation 13:17 predicted that a time will come when “no one will be able to buy or to sell, except he who has the mark”; now it’s essentially, no one will be able to buy or to sell, except he who has the shot.

To be precise, proposed is the idea that people should suffer career loss and social ostracism if they refuse the GTAs. Not only is this based on no good science whatsoever — the most “vaccinated” nations also tend to have the highest coronavirus infection rates — but Shurk, again, labels it a war crime.

Making his case, he cites the 1947 Nuremberg Code’s “first stated principle outlining the bare minimum required of medical professionals ‘to satisfy moral, ethical, and legal’ duties.” To wit:

Shurk then asks about the above’s highlighted segment: “Does this set off any alarm bells for ethicists concerned about not following in the footsteps of Nazi medical science or treating civilians as guinea pigs for experimental research?”

“Is it possible that Herr Biden’s angry threats against healthy citizens for not partaking in his medical research might amount to ‘duress’ or ‘coercion’?” he continues. “Let’s see — jab this in your arm, or we will fire you, render you unemployable, threaten the financial survival of you and your family, and maybe leave you destitute and homeless.”

Shurk points out that Food and Drug Administration regulations also prohibit human experimentation.

Going further, the writer then cites how the Fourth Geneva Convention labels collective punishment a war crime, stating, “Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” “The 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions ensure that real or threatened collective punishments are crimes against humanity ‘at any time and in any place whatsoever,’” Shurk adds.

Despite this, the Biden administration “has targeted unvaccinated citizens without any regard as to whether they might individually have natural immunity or have gained immunity from having already been infected with the Fauci Virus,” Shurk also points out. “Instead, D.F.’s vaccine mandates are structured to punish an entire class of Americans who have the temerity to believe that adults should be able to make personal decisions about their own health.”

“Class” is the word, too. Consider the following September 10 Newsweek headline: “Members of Congress and Their Staff Are Exempt From Biden’s Vaccine Mandate.” Seriously?

How much more criminal does the mandate seem when the leaders exempt themselves from the experimental GTAs that “are necessary to keep us all safe!”?

Then there’s how, last month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was at a large fundraiser at a densely packed table, and everyone was unmasked (video below. Relevant portion begins at 1:38) — everyone, that is, except for the “little brown people” serving them, as pundit Tucker Carlson put it. How’s that for class distinction?

Note that Pelosi foists masks on others, but, despite being in a high-risk category at 81 years old, didn’t seem too concerned about The Virus™. Curious, huh?

Lastly note the evolution on GTAs. First the Democrats were highly skeptical of any vaccine whose development Donald Trump facilitated (example below. Relevant portion begins at 1:30).

Yes, WAR CRIME.

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.

For more information see Nuremberg Doctor’s Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.