While claiming that the "vaccines" are "highly effective" the U.S. National Institutes of Health nonetheless refers to them as "experimental" (see here and here).
The so-called "vaccines" are not vaccines as medical doctors understood the word prior to 2020 — they are experimental "gene therapies" which use techniques which have only recently been developed (by for-profit companies engaged in synthetic biological systems). The lie that the "vaccines" are not experimental is exposed in the following articles:
It is not opinion but rather fact, as stated in August 2020 by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, that the AstraZaneca jabs are experimental.Phase 3 Clinical Testing in the U.S. of AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate Begins
A multi-site, Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating an investigational COVID-19 vaccine known as AZD1222 has begun [and will run for two years, to mid-2022]. The trial will ... evaluate if the candidate vaccine [that is, candidate for approval] can prevent symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). ... The trial primarily is designed to determine if AZD1222 can prevent symptomatic COVID-19 after two doses. The trial also will evaluate if the vaccine candidate can prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of symptoms and if it can prevent severe COVID-19. It also will assess if the experimental vaccine can reduce the incidence of emergency department visits due to COVID-19. ... The severity of the disease observed will be measured and used to assess the activity of the investigational vaccine. [Emphasis added]
However, the experiment is producing severe adverse reactions, including — according to one participant (personal communication) — "a several-week medical scare ... a vaccine-related prothrombitic event [with] much chest pain".
12 scientists report in July 2021 on PubMed:Prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination
We report 5 cases of prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia after exposure to the ChAdOx1 vaccine (AZD1222, Vaxzevria) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Patients presented 5 to 11 days after first vaccination. The spectrum of clinical manifestations included cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, splanchnic vein thrombosis, arterial cerebral thromboembolism, and thrombotic microangiopathy. All patients had thrombocytopenia and markedly elevated D-dimer. ... Two patients had thromboembolic events [formation of blood clots] .... In summary, an unexpected autoimmune prothrombotic disorder is described after vaccination with AZD1222. It is characterized by thrombocytopenia and anti-PF4 antibodies binding to platelets in AZD1222-dependent manner. Initial clinical experience suggests a risk of unusual and severe thromboembolic events.
The Nuremberg Code is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation created as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War. The U.S. National Institutes of Health is well aware of the Code because it published it on its website here.
According to the Nuremberg Code, "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 judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject." Or in the case of the current worldwide "vaccine rollout", to hundreds of millions of experimental subjects.
[The Nuremberg Code] includes 10 principles to guide physician-investigators in experiments involving human subjects. These principles, particularly the first principle on "voluntary consent", primarily were based on legal concepts because medical codes of ethics existent at the time of the Nazi atrocities did not address consent and other safeguards for human subjects. The US judges who presided over the proceedings [that is, the Nurenberg Trials] did not intend the Code to apply only to the case before them, to be a response to the atrocities committed by the Nazi physicians, or to be inapplicable to research as it is customarily carried on in medical institutions. Instead, a careful reading of the judgment suggests that they wrote the Code for the practice of human experimentation whenever [and wherever] it is being conducted. — The Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg Trial
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
The attempt by the executives of U.S. and other health "authorities" to administer the COVID-19 "vaccines" to hundreds of millions of partially (if at all) informed people — often without their voluntary consent (e.g. as a condition of continued employment) — and failing to protect them against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death is a clear violation of the Nuremberg Code. Consequently these executives should be brought to trial before the International Criminal Court in The Hague as soon as possible so as to prevent further disabling injury and death to the innocent citizens of their countries.
The healthcare workers who are protesting believe taking away people's choice and informed consent violates medical codes of ethics as well as fundamental human rights, the constitution and the Nuremberg Code.
Serendipity Home Page