The Nuremberg Code was generated by a US Military Tribunal prosecuting war crimes post WW2 in Germany. Its at the bottom, because it is not "law".
There is also discussion that the Helsinki Agreement "supercedes" the Nuremberg Code, but I think that is kind of silly, because the Nuremberg Code is not a "law" it is a set of criteria upon which a Military Tribunal judges 24 Germans accused of war crimes.
The laws of the United States are defined by the USC (United States Codes) which authorize and generate CFRs, the Code Of Federal Regulations. A number of CFRs apply to human experimentation, and you can start going down that rabbit hole here....
Do you see the obvious get out of jail free card here? Fauci is counting on it. If they make the States or other entities perform the human experimentation, then this law of extermination and capable informed consent just gets Quashed, it gets thrown out, there is no standing, it is not applicable to the Fed. They double cover themselves by the sleight of hand the FDA trots out further below.
The federal regulations were enacted under the authority granted to HHS by Congress in 42 U.S.C. § 300v-1 and 42 U.S. Code § 289.
45 C.F.R. § 46.111(a)(4) requires in pertinent part the following:
Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by, §46.116.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(a)(1) explicitly states:
Before involving a human subject in research covered by this policy, an investigator shall obtain the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative.
In order for the consent to be informed the test subject, among other things, must be told prior to being administered an experimental vaccine about “any reasonably foreseeable risks … any benefits to the subject … disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment … an explanation as to whether any compensation and an explanation as to whether any medical treatments are available if injury occurs … whom to contact in the event of a research-related injury to the subject … refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled.”
Amazingly the FDA who regulates medical treatments, has taken the position that if they post up a fact sheet on their website, that satisfies "informed consent" even if the recipient of said Vaccine is not aware that there is a fact sheet posted. That ignore the little issue of whether they have internet access, and whether they have the ability to understand the fact sheet. Here are 2
This site covers all this in about 5 times more detail and a ton of links
Below table is from
|The Nuremberg Code||1931 Guidelines|
|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 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.||5. Innovative therapy may be carried out only after the subject or his legal representative has unambiguously consented to the procedure in the light of relevant information provided in advance. Where consent is refused, innovative therapy may be initiated only if it constitutes an urgent rocedure to preserve life or prevent serious damage to health and prior consent could not be obtained under the circumstances.|
|7. Exploitation of social hardship in order to undertake innovative therapy is incompatible with the principles of medical ethics.|
|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.||4. Any innovative therapy must be justified and performed in accordance with the principles of medical ethics and the rules of medical practice and theory. In all cases, the question of whether any adverse effects which may occur are proportionate to the anticipated benefits shall be examined and assessed. Innovative therapy may be carried out only if it has been tested in advance in animal trials (where these are possible).|
|3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.||(b) Experimentation involving human subjects shall be avoided if it can be replaced by animal studies. Experimentation involving human subjects may be carried out only after all data that can be collected by means of those biological methods (laboratory testing and animal studies) that are available to medical science for purposes of clarification and confirmation of the validity of the experiment have been obtained. Under these circumstances, motiveless and unplanned experimentation involving human subjects shall obviously be prohibited.|
|4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.||Not covered by the 1931 Guidelines|
|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.||Risk benefit analysis covered under Point 4 of the guidelines|
|7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury disability or death.||Not covered by the 1931 Guidelines|
|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. In clinics, policlinics, hospitals, or other treatment and care establishments, innovative therapy may be carried out only by the physician in charge or by another physician acting in accordance with his express instructions and subject to his complete responsibility.|
|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.||Not covered by the 1931 Guidelines|
|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 by him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.||Not covered by the|