Most of us have had reason to be dismayed at a government decision or action. The absence of an ethics function and a quality control function in nearly every organisation on this planet, but most particularly governments, are key factors destroying our society at present.
If an ethics function existed we would not have large corporations able to make donations to political parties that effectively bought them influence with law makers.
If a quality control function existed in government we would not have laws even mooted let alone being passed that are in direct contravention of the basic rights we have as individuals and in violation of the very foundations of our legal structure: the Hippocratic Oath, Magna Carta, The Nuremberg Code, the Universal Declaration on Medical Bioethics and Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and The Helsinki Agreement.
The Hippocratic Oath
Is perhaps the most widely known of Greek medical texts. It requires a new physician to swear upon a number of healing gods that he will uphold a number of professional ethical standards. The oath is the earliest expression of medical ethics in the Western world, establishing several principles of medical ethics which remain of paramount significance today. As one of the sentences from the earliest recorded versions held says, “I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.”
Many doctors are reporting that the experimental medical treatment, erroneously being called a Covid vaccine, is doing harm to many and killing thousands or people.
This treatment is thus a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
Magna Carta 1215
Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for “Great Charter of Freedoms”), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; “Great Charter”), is a royal charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215 preserves the right of a man to free customs.
”NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised (To remove (a party) wrongly from real property that is lawfully possessed) of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his Peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”
The Australian Constitution (as amended 1946)
The powers of the Commonwealth with respect to legislating on medical issues is covered in section 51 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
Our constitution was amended in 1946 to include section 51.xxiiia:
(xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;
~~~~~~~~~~
Darren Dixon “So, basically, I’ll go back to how this was created. And how that was created, is in 1946 Australia had a Referendum, and the people in 1946 voted for this to be inserted into The Constitution. And it provides a medical protection, that I know a lot of people are looking for and are a bit bewildered at a lot of the, a lot of the State news that’s coming out at the moment in regards to being… having certain medical procedures forced upon them.
Now the High Court has actually spoken on this, and they’ve interpreted this “NO form of Civil Conscription”, over 60 years in much settled Case Law. There’s been 38 High Court Judges involved, and they’ve actually interpreted that part of Civil Conscription to which I was speaking about. And what they’ve actually interpreted it to be is the fact that, in regards to medical procedures, there is a thing called the doctor-patient relationship. And the doctor-patient relationship cannot be penetrated. It’s voluntary, it’s by your consent, and then no third party can get involved in this particular relationship, it’s just you and the doctor. Not even the Government can get involved in the doctor-patient relationship.
So having said that, what actually the High Court have defined and interpreted, is that the Government cannot provide any legal or practical compulsion for you to accept any medical procedure. It’s totally voluntary, and it’s by your consent, and if the consent is forced, or the consent is withdrawn during the medical procedure, it’s actually assault.”
~~~~~~~~~~
There is a 95 page High Court ruling on the meaning of this provision. British Medical Association v Commonwealth [1949] HCA 44; (1949) 79 CLR 201 (7 October 1949).
The two key aspects of the ruling relate to 1) the extent of powers provided to the Parliament by this provision, and 2) the meaning of “civil” conscription.
This important ruling deals with compelling a medical practitioner to render a service and more important confirms the right of a person to determine by his will if he should take any benefit provided.
In the written judgement of Latham C.J. he stated:
“The power is not a power to make law with respect to, e.g. pharmaceutical benefits and medical services. It is a power to make laws with respect to the provision of such benefits and services” (at p242)
“If a person or institutions choose to remain outside the benefits of the scheme there is not in my opinion anything in the Act to compel them to accept those benefits.” (at p244)
“The object of conferring power upon the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws for the provision of pharmaceutical benefits was to enable the Parliament to make laws with respect to (inter alia) the provision of pharmaceutical benefits by the Commonwealth under a scheme which should involve no compulsion of service by any person which would leave every person, according to his own will, and not by reason of the exercise of the will of Parliament or of any other person, at liberty to take part in the execution of the scheme or to stand outside the scheme altogether, whether as doctor, as chemist or as patient.” (at p253)
~~~~~~~~~~
The Nuremberg Code 1947
Formulated after the tragedy that was WWII, the Nuremberg Code specifies the conditions for a medical experiment to be legal. Item 1 states:
“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. 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.”
Given that the present Covid shots are
a) experimental and do not come off trial until 2023 in most cases and
b) the government and media are guilty of withholding and suppressing evidence of the risks attendant on taking them and
c) The government are applying coercion in the form of blackmail, promoting that the lockdowns will persist until at least 70-8-% of the population are vaccinated,
then it is committing multiple violations of the Nuremberg Code.
The “experimental” COVID shot violates all 10 Nuremberg codes – which carry the death penalty for those who try to break these international laws.
1) Provides immunity to the virus
This is a “leaky” gene therapy that does not provide immunity to Covid and claims that they reduce the symptoms, but double-vaccinated are now 40-80% of patients who need ER or ICU with Covid infections.
2) Protects the recipients from getting the virus
This gene therapy does not provide immunity and the double vaccinated can still catch and spread the virus.
3) Reduces deaths due to viral infection
This gene therapy does not reduce deaths from the infection. Double-vaccinated people infected with Covid have also died. The latest statistics reveal that in the 8 months since the vaccines were made available far more people have dies after receiving the vaccine than have died in the 18 months due to Covid.
4) Reduces the circulation of the virus
This gene therapy still allows the virus to spread because it gives zero immunity to the virus and the vaccinated can also shed spike proteins from the vaccine.
5) Reduces the transmission of the virus
This gene therapy still allows transmission of the virus because it does not confer immunity to the virus and the vaccinated can also shed spike proteins from the vaccine.
The following violations of the Nuremberg Code apply:
Nuremberg Code # 1: Voluntary consent is important
No person should be forced to take a medical experiment without informed consent.
Many talking heads in the media, celebrities, politicians and other non-medical people urge people to take the injection and criticise those who chose not to take it.
They do not provide information about the negative effects or dangers of this gene therapy. All you hear from them is – “safe and effective” and “the benefits outweigh the risks.”
Countries use blockades, coercion and threats to force people to take this vaccine or are banned from participating in free society under the mandate of a vaccine pass.
During the Nuremberg trials, the media were also prosecuted and members of the media were executed for lying to the public, along with many of the doctors and Nazis found guilty of crimes against humanity.
Nuremberg Code # 2: Yields with fruitful results that cannot be produced by other means
As mentioned above, gene therapy does not meet the criteria for a vaccine and does not offer immunity to the virus. There are other medical treatments that give fruitful results against Covid, such as Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Vitamin D, Vitamin C, zinc and strengthened immune system for flu and colds.
Nuremberg Code # 3: Basic experiments as a result of animal experiments and natural history disease
This gene therapy skipped animal experiments and went directly to human experiments.
In mRNA research used by Pfizer – a candidate study on mRNA with rhesus macaques monkeys using BNT162b2 mRNA and in that study all monkeys developed pneumonia but the researchers considered the risk low because these were young healthy monkeys from 2-4 years of age.
Israel has used Pfizer and the International Court of Justice has accepted a requirement that 80% of recipients with pneumonia should be injected with this gene therapy.
Despite this alarming development, Pfizer continued to develop its mRNA for Covid, without animal testing.
Nuremberg Code # 4: Avoid all unnecessary suffering and injury
Since the launch of the experiment and listed under the CDC VAERS reporting system, over 10,000 deaths and 200,000 vaccine injuries have been reported in the United States. In the EU, more than 20,000 deaths and 365,000 vaccine injuries have been reported. This is a serious violation of this code.
Nuremberg Code # 5: No experiment should be performed if there is reason to believe that injury or death will occur
See No. 4, based on factual medical data, this gene therapy causes death and injury. Previous research on mRNA also shows several risks that have been ignored for this current experimental gene experiment. A 2002 study of SARS-CoV-1 nail proteins showed that they cause inflammation, immunopathology, blood clots and inhibit Angiotensin 2 expression. This experiment forces the body to produce this spike protein that inherits all these risks.
Nuremberg Code # 6: The risk should never exceed the benefit
Covid-19 has a recovery rate of 98-99.996%. Vaccine damage, death, and adverse side effects of mRNA gene therapy far outweigh this risk.
The use of “leaky” vaccines was banned for agricultural use by the US and the EU due to the Marek Chicken study which shows “hot viruses” and variants appear… make the disease even more deadly.
Nevertheless, this has been ignored for human use by the CDC aware that the risk of new, more deadly variants arises from leaky vaccinations. The CDC is fully aware that the use of leaky vaccines facilitates the emergence of hotter (more deadly) strains. Yet they have ignored this when it comes to humans.
Nuremberg Code # 7: Preparations must be made for even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death
No preparations were made. This gene therapy skipped animal experiments. The pharmaceutical companies’ own clinical phase 3 studies will not end until 2022/2023. These vaccines were approved in an emergency use only action to force on a misinformed public. They are NOT FDA approved.
Nuremberg Code # 8: Experiments must be carried out by scientifically qualified persons
Politicians, the media and actors who claim that this is a safe and effective vaccine are not qualified. Propaganda is not medical science.
Many stores such as Walmart & drive-through vaccine centers are not qualified to administer experimental medical gene therapies to the uninformed public.
Nuremberg Code # 9: Everyone must have the freedom to end the experiment at any time
Despite the call from over 85,000 doctors, nurses, virologists and epidemiologists – the experiment does not end. In fact, there are currently many attempts to change laws to enforce vaccine compliance and vaccine passports.
This includes mandatory vaccinations. Experimental “sprayers” are planned every six months without heeding the growing number of deaths and injuries already caused by this experiment.
These update images will be administered without any clinical trials. Hopefully, this new Nuremberg trial will put an end to this crime against humanity.
Nuremberg Code # 10: The researcher must terminate the experiment at any time if there is a probable cause for injury or death
It is clear from statistical reporting data that this experiment leads to death and injury. But not all politicians, pharmaceutical companies and so-called experts make any attempt to stop this gene therapy experiment from harming a misinformed public.
Legal proceedings are progressing, evidence has been gathered and a large growing group of experts is sounding the alarm.
United Nations Declaration on Human Rights 10 December 1948
Most governments have signed the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.
These 30 Human Rights were expressly crafted to provide protection to individuals and prevent tyranny.
A vaccine passport would violate Human Right number 2.
Human Rights Video #2: Don’t Discriminate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jy1nJCYEOo
Lockdowns, international and travel bans between states violate Human Right number 3.
Human Rights Video #13: Freedom To Move
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdRV4TP_gWI
The Australian Federal government’s barring of medical professionals from speaking truth if it does not align with the official stance is a direct violation of a doctor’s human rights let alone their professional obligation to do what they observe to be best for their patient per the Hippocratic Oath.
Human Rights Video #18: Freedom of Thought
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ3kLTz3JPU
Human Rights Video #19: Freedom of Expression
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgvQzHdv6AA
Banning of protests violates Human Right number 20.
Human Rights Video #20: Right to Assembly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oduSjw7Wd0
And lastly, the government should not remove our human rights. Period.
Human Rights Video #30: No One Can Take Away Your Human Rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv8ljtMJMak
All of these violations have been committed under the guise of a declared emergency that is based on a fraudulent premise and co-opted science. Refer the downloadable pdf: https://www.tomgrimshaw.com/Truth_Dispels_COVID_Lies.pdf
The Geneva Convention 1949
In addition to the incorrect tests and fraudulent death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself violates Article 32 of the Geneva Convention.
Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not required for the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited.
According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a serious breach of the Convention.
The Helsinki Declaration August 1975
This is another document that lays out the responsibilities of governments with respect to protecting human dignity and human rights. The Helsinki Declaration was the document signed at the closing meeting of the third phase of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe held in Helsinki, Finland, during 30 July – 1 August 1975, following two years of negotiations known as the Helsinki Process.
Item 12 covers the requirement that governments exercise:
XII Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief
Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights 19 October 2005
This is another document that lays out the responsibilities of governments with respect to protecting human dignity and human rights.
From https://en.unesco.org/themes/ethics-science-and-technology/bioethics-and-human-rights I quote: “States have a special responsibility not only with respect to bioethical reflection but also in the drafting of any legislation that may follow. In the field of bioethics, whilst many States have framed laws and regulations aimed at protecting human dignity and human rights and freedoms, many other countries wish to establish benchmarks and sometimes lack the means to do so.”
The full text of the Universal Declaration on Medical Bioethics and Human Rights (available at: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html) contains the following:
Article 6 – Consent
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention 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 express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
At ANY time these preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical interventions are mandated, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights is being violated!
At ANY time people are coerced or disadvantaged by not agreeing to a preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights is being violated!
A mask is a preventative medical intervention.
A COVID test is a diagnostic medical intervention.
Social distancing is a preventative medical intervention.
Lockdowns are a preventative medical intervention.
Border closures are a preventative medical intervention.
A vaccination is a preventative medical intervention.
The administration of a drug or chemotherapy is a therapeutic medical intervention.
The No Jab, No Pay legislation is a “disadvantage or prejudice” against those who wish to provide for their children’s health without immunisations.
The requirement of a vaccine to work is coercion.
The requirement of a vaccine passport to travel or conduct business is coercion.
Closing Remarks
SARS CoVid-19 – The Legalities
From the Hippocratic oath which enjoins the practitioner to do no harm to the Nuremberg code which asserts that informed consent and voluntary participation is a requirement to the Universal Agreement on Medical Bioethics and Human Rights, every honest and ethical set of principles details the rights and freedom of individuals to determine their own medical choices.
By all means take any preventative, diagnostic or therapeutic measures to protect yourself and those you love without in that process hurting another, but also respect others’ rights to do as they see fit, even if what they do is different from what you are doing.
The very idea of a government or commercial enterprise mandating a medical procedure as a condition of receiving benefits or of doing business should be such anathema to an informed and responsible public that they those in charge would have nightmares when contemplating the reaction of the public to it.
That those in charge feel emboldened enough to moot and pass such legislation and company policy is a damning indictment on the knowledge, complacency and responsibility of the public at large, with too few exceptions.
Most people do not know their rights, don’t have certainty those rights are worth preserving so cannot take responsibility for preserving them.
My daily news feed is a constant stream of heinous examples of violations of the above human rights (and others). If we do not address the root causes of this, as a society we are doomed. For tyrannical leaders will use each pretext to usurp more and more of our rights till at last we have none. For a taste of what that would be like, ask a person who has lived in a totalitarian regime what it was like. They will be most emphatic in their view that it is well worth making the effort to avoid.
So now you know you have rights. You know what some of them are. Hopefully you agree that they are worth keeping. In which case I encourage you to summon the courage to take every opportunity to stand up and speak out against human rights violations… …while you still can. Only if enough people stand up for their rights will we be able to preserve them.
“How do I do this?” you ask. Well, it can be as simple as emailing or printing out this article and getting it in the hands of everyone, especially anyone you observe not acting in accord with the preservation of your human rights. Including but not limited to:
The shopkeeper requiring you wear a mask to enter their premises.
A shopping centre management that mandates social distancing.
An airline requiring a vaccination before you travel.
A member of local government council, parliament or Congress or Senate that proposes or will be asked to vote on any matter affected by the above points.
https://www.tomgrimshaw.com/KnowAndPreserveYourHumanRights.pdf
Version II 25 August 2021