Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

EU Chief Calls For Trashing the Nuremberg Code


Following WWII, the Nuremberg Code established a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation.

After the Nuremberg trials, the code of medical ethics laid the foundation to which physicians must conform when carrying out experiments on human subjects.

It established the principle of voluntary informed consent and ensured individuals the right to control his/her body.

The code has profoundly impacted international human rights law to protect patients from suffering unnecessary pain and injury.

CIRP lists the ten points of the Nuremberg Code:

  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. 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.

  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.

  3. 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.

  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

  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.

  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.

  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. 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.

  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 of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Interpretation of this code of medical ethics isn’t difficult for doctors, scientists, and politicians to understand.

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”

If an individual says NO to any medical experiment, they don’t give consent.

And there should be no intervention of coercion, like losing your job, to convince an individual to participate in the experiment.

Yet, EU Chief Ursula von der Leyen wants to trash this basic code of medical ethics and allow humans to be Big Pharma guinea pigs.

As The Post Millennial explains:

Ursula Van Der Leyen, the head of the EU commission, told the press on Wednesday that she is in favour of scrapping the long-standing Nuremburg Code and forcing people to get vaccinated against COVID.

Von der Leyen doesn’t care about voluntary informed consent and wants the EU to have 100% ownership of what goes into the bodies of European residents.

Her statement to scrap the Nuremberg Code to enforce COVID-19 jab mandates is akin to the war crimes committed by Nazis like Josef Mengele.

In her interview with BBC, Von Der Leyen stated it was:

“understandable and appropriate” for EU members to discuss mandatory Covid vaccinations given that a third of the bloc’s population was unvaccinated. “How we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union? This needs discussion. This needs a common approach, but it is a discussion that I think has to be led.”

The Nuremberg Code was enacted in 1947 to avoid a repeat of the heinous crimes committed by the Nazis and Imperial Japan.

With the EU Chief favoring a removal of this code of medical ethics, it shows the European Union has the same thought process as those war criminals.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Hey, Noah here!

Wondering where we went?

Read this and bookmark our new site!

See you over there!

Thanks for sharing!