by Jefferey Jaxen
Many parents and individuals in America and across the world have been left with the unwelcomed burdens of a nontransparent, unscientific, and fraudulent vaccine industry and its captured medical community. The uninvited guest of vaccine injury has produced broken relationships, bankruptcies, soul-draining vaccine court petitioning, and a broken social contract of a failed medical paradigm. Based loosely on medical assumptions and scientific inaccuracies, it appears that the worm is turning for a false safe and effective vaccine narrative once deeply entrenched.
The Nuremberg Code once thought to be a relic of some barbarous time in forgotten human history has risen from the ashes to once again instruct a misguided mainstream medical community that has lost its way. Birthed in 1947, after the conclusion of the Second World War, the Nuremberg Code is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation set as a result of the subsequent Nuremberg trials. Why the Nuremberg Code and why now?
The two low hanging fruits to explain why the mention of the Nuremberg Code is once again seeing a mainstream resurgence can be witnessed from two different vantage points. First and foremost, many vaccines have not been properly tested using known research standards and commonly accepted methods. The inaccurate or underpowered studies have provided incomplete data to which the continuation of an entire vaccine belief system is being based upon. In addition, since pre-licensure clinical trials used small sample sizes, short time frames, and non-saline placebo controls, we the public are unsuspecting subjects in the final phase of vaccine testing. If you look on the vaccine insert, the manufactures call the results of this phase ‘post marketing experiences.’ And those reported ‘experiences’ are often very undesirable. Furthermore, the evidence of multiple instances of research fraud to purposely hide widespread damage from vaccines is found not only in the pre-marketing vaccine trials, but also in various aspects of the past and present vaccine marketing and government oversight.
Enter Mary Holland, JD, the director of NYU’s Graduate Lawyering Program who, in addition to her teaching, does research and writing on vaccine law and policy. Holland was recently interviewed by HighWire host Del Bigtree and was asked how she became involved with the vaccine issue. Holland stated:
"My real focus in law school was related to human rights and international human rights norms and specifically as they related to the then Soviet Union. So that was really how my career focused for the first almost 10-15 years of being a lawyer. And then I had a child and my child was diagnosed with autism and it was very incompresnhensble how my child had developed autism…and I slowly came to appreciate that the only plausible explanation for what had happened to my child was vaccine injury."
Having to endure the vaccine injury of her child, Holland decided to be the change she wanted to see. She describes that the vaccine injury of her child took her down a path of studying vaccine law, because "…that would be a way in which I could contribute to this enormous problem that we face."
When asked point blank if she feels like her child was part of an experiment, Holland said:
"From my perspective the problem is, as you’ve pointed out, that vaccines are not treated like drugs. They don’t go through the same rigorous double-blind placebo-controlled studies that drugs do. They’re called biologics and therefore get a far inferior level of safety testing. I think it would be inaccurate to dismiss that there is some safety testing. But I would completely agree that it’s wholly inadequate safety testing. Especially given the context that manufacturers and administrators have no liability and it’s being administered in a compulsory manner."
The Nuremberg code has been developed a lot over the last 75 years and the best new articulation of that can been seen in something called The Declaration of Human Rights and Bioethics. Holland goes on to explain, "…the Declaration was done under the United Nations and it makes it clear that those principles…from the Nuremberg Code don’t just apply to experiments. They also apply to any treatment modalities. So they apply to any kind of preventive treatment modality, including vaccines."
The American healthcare and legal systems have rationalized and prioritized public health goals over informed consent. In doing so, a high level of coercion has settled into the fabric of American society that sees a conflict between individual rights and public health priorities. Holland summarizes as follows:
"Where the American system draws the line is that coercion is okay but you can’t force vaccinate. Holland says that such coercion, such as California’s Senate Bill 277 or employers mandating employees to vaccinate in order to keep their jobs is "…not consistent with the Nuremberg Code, with human rights ethics, or with fully informed consent." Holland puts a point on the argument by concluding, "In my opinion, does this violate Constitutional principles? Yes, it does. The level of coercion is totally inconsistent with the laws on fully informed consent which are state laws and federal norms."
Currently, in present day Michigan there are not one but two separate highly publicized cases involving mothers who are battling court-ordered vaccination of their children against their informed consent. One mother, Rebecca Bredow, despite being the primary caregiver was jailed and lost temporary custody of her 9-year-old son to her ex-husband for the specific court–ordered purpose of vaccinating her child. The other mother, Lori Matheson, is scheduled for a hearing this week to determine the outcome of a court’s ruling on the vaccination, against Matheson’s stated wishes, of her 2-year-old daughter. Historically, there have been countless other court custody cases that have ended poorly for parents wishing to protect their informend consent. And there are many, many more happening currently in which the informed consent and vaccination of a child or children is hanging in the balance. It will be these custody courtroom battlegrounds nationwide, similar to the ones occurring in Michigan at the moment, in which parents will need to continue to claw back their unrecognized right to informed consent.
The Nuremberg Code once thought to be a relic of some barbarous time in forgotten human history has risen from the ashes to once again instruct a misguided mainstream medical community that has lost its way. Birthed in 1947, after the conclusion of the Second World War, the Nuremberg Code is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation set as a result of the subsequent Nuremberg trials. Why the Nuremberg Code and why now?
The two low hanging fruits to explain why the mention of the Nuremberg Code is once again seeing a mainstream resurgence can be witnessed from two different vantage points. First and foremost, many vaccines have not been properly tested using known research standards and commonly accepted methods. The inaccurate or underpowered studies have provided incomplete data to which the continuation of an entire vaccine belief system is being based upon. In addition, since pre-licensure clinical trials used small sample sizes, short time frames, and non-saline placebo controls, we the public are unsuspecting subjects in the final phase of vaccine testing. If you look on the vaccine insert, the manufactures call the results of this phase ‘post marketing experiences.’ And those reported ‘experiences’ are often very undesirable. Furthermore, the evidence of multiple instances of research fraud to purposely hide widespread damage from vaccines is found not only in the pre-marketing vaccine trials, but also in various aspects of the past and present vaccine marketing and government oversight.
Enter Mary Holland, JD, the director of NYU’s Graduate Lawyering Program who, in addition to her teaching, does research and writing on vaccine law and policy. Holland was recently interviewed by HighWire host Del Bigtree and was asked how she became involved with the vaccine issue. Holland stated:
"My real focus in law school was related to human rights and international human rights norms and specifically as they related to the then Soviet Union. So that was really how my career focused for the first almost 10-15 years of being a lawyer. And then I had a child and my child was diagnosed with autism and it was very incompresnhensble how my child had developed autism…and I slowly came to appreciate that the only plausible explanation for what had happened to my child was vaccine injury."
Having to endure the vaccine injury of her child, Holland decided to be the change she wanted to see. She describes that the vaccine injury of her child took her down a path of studying vaccine law, because "…that would be a way in which I could contribute to this enormous problem that we face."
When asked point blank if she feels like her child was part of an experiment, Holland said:
"From my perspective the problem is, as you’ve pointed out, that vaccines are not treated like drugs. They don’t go through the same rigorous double-blind placebo-controlled studies that drugs do. They’re called biologics and therefore get a far inferior level of safety testing. I think it would be inaccurate to dismiss that there is some safety testing. But I would completely agree that it’s wholly inadequate safety testing. Especially given the context that manufacturers and administrators have no liability and it’s being administered in a compulsory manner."
The Nuremberg code has been developed a lot over the last 75 years and the best new articulation of that can been seen in something called The Declaration of Human Rights and Bioethics. Holland goes on to explain, "…the Declaration was done under the United Nations and it makes it clear that those principles…from the Nuremberg Code don’t just apply to experiments. They also apply to any treatment modalities. So they apply to any kind of preventive treatment modality, including vaccines."
The American healthcare and legal systems have rationalized and prioritized public health goals over informed consent. In doing so, a high level of coercion has settled into the fabric of American society that sees a conflict between individual rights and public health priorities. Holland summarizes as follows:
"Where the American system draws the line is that coercion is okay but you can’t force vaccinate. Holland says that such coercion, such as California’s Senate Bill 277 or employers mandating employees to vaccinate in order to keep their jobs is "…not consistent with the Nuremberg Code, with human rights ethics, or with fully informed consent." Holland puts a point on the argument by concluding, "In my opinion, does this violate Constitutional principles? Yes, it does. The level of coercion is totally inconsistent with the laws on fully informed consent which are state laws and federal norms."
Currently, in present day Michigan there are not one but two separate highly publicized cases involving mothers who are battling court-ordered vaccination of their children against their informed consent. One mother, Rebecca Bredow, despite being the primary caregiver was jailed and lost temporary custody of her 9-year-old son to her ex-husband for the specific court–ordered purpose of vaccinating her child. The other mother, Lori Matheson, is scheduled for a hearing this week to determine the outcome of a court’s ruling on the vaccination, against Matheson’s stated wishes, of her 2-year-old daughter. Historically, there have been countless other court custody cases that have ended poorly for parents wishing to protect their informend consent. And there are many, many more happening currently in which the informed consent and vaccination of a child or children is hanging in the balance. It will be these custody courtroom battlegrounds nationwide, similar to the ones occurring in Michigan at the moment, in which parents will need to continue to claw back their unrecognized right to informed consent.
RSS Feed