Combining various international treaties since its inception in 1864, the Geneva Conventions were originally intended for, and still stand as, protections for soldiers and civilians in wartime. So, with the vaccines for COVID being discussed as a possible crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Code, which falls under the Geneva Conventions, the question arises: Are we at war? 

During what became known as “The Doctors’ Trial” after WWII, concerns arose about medical experimentation on humans. 

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from those conducted before the war by German and American scientists. They showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation.” (Emphasis mine). Thus, the Nuremberg Code was created comprising ten points outlining acceptable medical research and standards.

Part 1 of this series is entitled, “Nuremberg Code Makes Vaccine Consent Essential.” It explains the doctrine of voluntary and informed consent of the participant in medical applications under the Code. Its “adoption into the 1949 Geneva Conventions later gave [it] international standing. Breaking from the Convention’s intent presumably constitutes a war crime.”

More importantly, the term “medical experimentation” as stated in the Nuremberg Code is defined in Part 1.

My argument in Part I of this series asks why, since the Code falls under the Geneva Conventions, ought not the Conventions’ umbrella classification applying to “wartime” victims also extend to the Code’s intention by default? And, if true, where do civilians fall? Of course, that’s a legal question and I don’t pretend to be an attorney. But it seems to me that the presumption could easily be made. Yet no one is making it.

Why have tens of thousands of doctors recently signed on to what’s being called the new “Nuremberg Trials 2021?” Legal proceedings have been filed against the CDC, the WHO, and the Davos Group for crimes against humanity by over a thousand attorneys worldwide.

Led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, the “Nuremberg Trials 2021” team argues that the vaccines are in violation of Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. It claims that Article 32 states that “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. And, “according to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.”

Indeed, the International Committee of the Red Cross confirms that Article 32 specifies that “protected persons must not in any circumstances be used as ‘guinea-pigs’ for medical experiments. ‘Biological experiments’ are also prohibited by the other three Conventions of 1949.”

I believe, as laid out in Part 1 of this 2-part series, that there are convincing arguments as to why the COVID-19 vaccines fall into the “experimental” definition of the Nuremberg Code in multiple ways.

Regardless, on a deeper dive into Article 32, its title is telling. The formal document, as an uploaded PDF version from the United Nations, is called the “GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR OF 12 AUGUST 1949.” Again the reference to wartime is notable.

Cornell Law School says that “[t]he Geneva Conventions … provide minimum protections, standards of humane treatment, and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals who become victims of armed conflicts.” It doesn’t say ‘victims of unarmed conflicts.’

Multiple educational resources concur with the aforementioned references to “wartime” terms, including World Atlas. It states that “[t]he Geneva Conventions refer to international agreements that are made up of four treaties and three protocols that define the treatment of people during a war.” (Emphasis added.)

How can it be, then, that the Nuremberg Code, falling under the Geneva Conventions, could be used in any argument against the COVID vaccine during a time of peace? The answer seems obvious. But, not so fast. 

Recent history offers some clues.

In an intriguing article from Wired published on Nov. 7, 2002, it seems as a country we’ve traveled this road before. The article’s title reads, “Forced Vaccines Haunt Gulf Vets — Rule No. 1 in the Nuremberg Code for conducting medical experiments: Get the subjects’ consent.”

The author explains how our soldiers were given non-FDA-approved drugs prior to deploying to Desert Storm. Many returned with assorted unexplained illnesses. 

“‘We had a third day of shots before we went over (to the Gulf),’ said the ex-Ranger, who requested anonymity because his Army Reserve commitment [had] yet to expire. ‘Guys in other units only had two, but most Rangers had three. They wouldn’t tell us what they were for.’”

According to the article, the question of forced vaccines had been addressed years before. “In a February 1953 directive, Defense Secretary Charles Wilson established what [was] still the ‘law of the land’ governing such experimentation. Consistent with the Nuremberg Code, the directive’s cornerstone is voluntary consent,’ according to Wilson.

“‘The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,’ Wilson wrote, ordering that such consent be given in writing before at least one witness. Wilson also banned the use of ‘force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion’ in obtaining consent. When did that change?

“Did the Pentagon obey this directive during the Gulf War? According to Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, it did not. The administration of experimental drugs without consent was, Orient said, ‘the first instance in which an official government agency officially sanctioned the direct violation of the Nuremberg Code.’” And it was intentional!

“In a 1994 report called Human Experimentation and Other Intentional Exposures Conducted by the Department of Defense, [the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs] claimed that “‘[t]he results of our investigation showed a reckless disregard that shocked me,’ said Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV. ‘The Pentagon … threw caution to the winds, ignoring all warnings of potential harm, and gave these (investigational) drugs to hundreds of thousands of soldiers with virtually no warnings and no safeguards.’”

“‘There is no provision in the Nuremberg Code,’ the Rockefeller Committee report concluded, ‘that allows a country to waive informed consent for military personnel or veterans who serve as human subjects in experiments during wartime or in experiments that are conducted because of threat of war.’”

If it protects our soldiers then in time of war, one would think it would also protect our civilian populations who are NOT in a state of war, right?

Responding to the accusations at the time, a Pentagon spokesperson stated: “‘[i]n all peacetime applications, we believe strongly in informed consent and its ethical foundations… But military combat is different.’

In other words, according to the Pentagon in 1994, the Nuremberg Code only applied to soldiers in peacetime. It seems the narrative changes by what the “powers that be” deem convenient, at any given time.

In my book and articles, I habitually reference radical leftist Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, because it contains the tactics by which the left endeavors to transform America to socialism than communism. As important as his thirteen tactics, however, are his lesser-known eleven rules of ethics of means and ends. They provide a window into why the left, and Democrats by extension, can justify their out-of-control unethical behavior.

“Alinsky’s third rule of ethics of means and ends, ‘in war the end justifies almost any means’, applies to the left’s unapologetic, unethical shaming of all things conservative.” (Rules for Deplorables, pg. 215)

Arguing for the new “Nuremberg Code 2021” wouldn’t require convincing others that we’re at war with China per se (as if they even needed such justification). In order for the experimental vaccines to be criminalized, just say: We’re at war with the left!

If, on the other hand, the Pentagon’s position in 1994 is considered, then the Code’s “informed consent and its ethical foundations” are binding “in all peacetime applications” stays. They can’t have it both ways.

Necessarily, Alinsky’s fourth tactic, “make the enemy live up to its own book of rules,” must be applied. If the original Nuremberg Code of 1949 falls under the “wartime” parameters of the Geneva Conventions, and the vaccine is indeed “experimental” as my Part I of this series argues, then the signers of the “new Code” may well have a case.

It’s a fact that the military knowingly condoned experimental medical treatment well after the 1949 Nuremberg Code was established under the Geneva Conventions. And, that they felt justified in doing so. Why on earth should Americans believe the government would follow ethical standards now?

The simple answer is, we shouldn’t.

Whether Americans accept it or not, we are in a state of war for the very survival of our country. The enemy should neither be trusted nor obeyed. 

We ought to be fighting for transparency, the right of informed consent, and most importantly, the right to freedom of choice. If we do not stand strong for these minimal protections now, we are not mere guinea pigs, we are the experiment itself.