In essence, society’s attention has become focused on vaccination, focused solely on this health treatment. But TREATMENT is not what creates health, treatment is what changes or manages a persons’ symptoms of poor health. Instead of focusing solely on the treatment, there needs to be a shift. We need to evaluate the treatment in the context of the whole - what is working about the treatment? What needs improving? What is failing completely? How does the treatment affect evolution of the species? And how can health be supported moving forward so that the treatment is no longer needed?
United States

May 18, 2018

March 30, 2017

Please reload

Recent Posts

Table of Contents

May 18, 2018

Please reload

Featured Posts

The Nuremberg Code / How the Vaccinated Also Spread Illness / and The Herd VS The Individual

March 11, 2017

This is another long article. It covers three different topics that at first glance seem to be unrelated. Truthfully, these discussion points are all interconnected and that will become more apparent at the conclusion of this  3 in 1 article.


The Nuremberg Code & How that Relates to Vaccination

Get vaccinated, or else! That’s the reality many people are facing today, around the world. In North America for instance, health care workers in many different areas are required to be vaccinated against the flu (and in some instances against their will) if they want to keep their job. Similarly, as stated two articles ago, children are being forced out of public school settings and child care settings, while healthy, simply because they are unvaccinated. In Australia, the Government is withholding financial support to specific citizens, if those citizens refused to vaccinate their kids. So, standard policy is becoming “Get vaccinated, or else!”


Before we talk about that further though, lets back up a bit. I've often heard doctors refer to the Nuremberg Code when discussing vaccination, and I've often wondered what that "code" is. Working through this Online Book project, I realized it was time to look into this a little further.


In the late 1940s, after World War II and the discovery of the atrocities that occurred in concentration camps, a series of trials were conducted in Nuremberg, Germany. These trials were referred to as the Nuremberg Trials. One of the trials dealt specifically with German physicians who had conducted unethical medical procedures and experiments on prisoners. The conclusion of that Nuremberg trial established a clear set of medical ethical guidelines, the purpose of which was to ensure that medical experiments are NEVER AGAIN FORCED upon people. This set of medical ethics is called the Nuremberg Code.


Now first off, I realize that there are likely several sets of principals that govern medical ethics. In medical school I believe there is a course devoted, or a series of courses devoted to teaching medical ethics, so for me to try and sum up medical ethics in a single article, when I am a lay person, it's likely I will significantly miss the mark on the full extent of the discussion that needs to happen here. I also realize that the Nuremberg Code speaks specifically about “medical experiments,” and I assume that many of you will say that vaccine science is settled and that vaccination has passed the experiment stage. So with that in mind I will share my personal opinion, which is that though vaccination has been conducted widely for the past 65 years, and has been in practice on a smaller scale for over 200 years (a long time now by our human standards), from an evolutionary perceptive, vaccination effects are likely just barely beginning (Remember Standford Medicine explained that vaccination alters genes within the immune system cells, and we have no idea what those gene alterations do, if they impair or improve immune system functioning and performance). To me, that means that the practice of vaccination is and will continue to be an ongoing experiment for generations. And separate from that, hearing doctors refer to the Nuremberg Code of ethics in vaccine discussions causes me to believe it has to apply, otherwise they wouldn't mention it specifically. Based on that, I assume that all medical procedures, whether they are considered to be experimental or not, are expected to be approached and explained to patients using the informed consent principles explained within in the Nuremberg code. 


The first principal of the Nuremberg Code states that the participant must be well informed and, with full understanding, consent. You will often hear doctors refer to “informed consent” when discussing vaccination and other medical procedures. To be well informed, and to offer informed consent means that the patient gives permission for the medical procedure, knowing fully ALL the possible side effects or undesirable consequences of the procedure, as well as all the benefits of the procedure. In the informed consent discussion, the doctor must also inform the patient of alternative options, which includes NOT doing the recommended procedure.


As Dr. Paul Thomas has stated repeatedly in many of his lectures and interviews, offering a patient (or parent) the necessary information about possible side effects and consequences of vaccination, and alternative options, so that genuine informed consent can be given, depends on the doctors being fully informed themselves. He and other doctors state that the majority of doctors are not informed about vaccination. In the previous article, I shared how limited our medical doctors' training is on vaccines. When doctors receive maybe 2 LECTURES on vaccines during their entire medical education, and when those lectures focus only on the benefits of vaccines (because in 1984 the DHHS instructed that well found vaccine safety concerns cannot be allowed to exist), then doctors simply are not being educated and informed themselves. And if doctors are not well informed themselves, they cannot educate and inform their patients, as is required by the Nuremberg Code of ethics.


In addition to that, the first principal of the Nuremberg Code also states that a participant (or parent) must VOLUNTARILY consent to a medical procedure. Any aspect of voluntary consent is lost, when a person is required to be vaccinated to:

  1. maintain their employment, and/or

  2. ensure their child is allowed in a child care setting, a public school setting, or a post secondary institutional setting and/or

  3. ensure they continue receiving Government tax benefits or financial support and assistance.

Policy that enforces punitive measures if a person doesn’t accept a medical procedure, then is acting in a coercive or forceful manner that thereby removes a persons' ability to VOLUNTARILY decide for themselves. Such coercive and forceful policy is medically unethical, according to the Nuremberg Code. When it comes to current vaccination practices and policies, many doctors today are stating that many of the 10 ethical principals identified in the Nuremberg Code are not being met at all.


To quote from wikipedia:

The Nuremberg Code has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association. In fact, the Code’s reference to Hippocratic duty to the individual patient and the need to provide information was not initially favored by the American Medical Association. The Western world initially dismissed the Nuremberg Code as a “code for barbarians” and not for civilized physicians and investigators...


However, the Code is considered to be the most important document in the history of the clinical research ethics, which had a massive influence on global human rights. The Nuremberg Code and the related Declaration of Helsinki are the basis for the Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46, which are the regulations issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for the ethical treatment of human subjects, and are used in Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). In addition, the idea of informed consent has been universally accepted and now constitutes Article 7 of the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also served as the basis for International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects proposed by the World Health Organization.


Professor Mary Holland, of the New York University School of Law, addressed this issue before the UN on April 26, 2016. She had the following to say (emphasis ine):

Since WWII, the International community has recognized the grave dangers in involuntary scientific and medical experimentation on human subjects.  In the aftermath of medical Nazi atrocities, the world affirmed the Nuremberg Code, which stated that the voluntary consent of human subjects is absolutely essential.  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further enshrined this prohibition against involuntary experimentation stating, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. Such a prohibition is now universally recognized, so that some courts and scholars should pronounce the right to informed consent as a matter of customary international law. In other words it applies everywhere, whether or not a country has it on its books. And it’s the same as the norms prohibiting slavery, genocide, torture and piracy.


But what about informed consent in the area of treatment, including preventative treatments, like vaccines. This is a controversial issue today, in many countries including the United States. In 2005, the UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), addressed this issue, adopting the Universal Declaration on Bioethics in Human Rights, based on a consensus of 193 countries, including the United States. The participating countries hoped that this declaration, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights before it would become a set of guiding principles. On the issue of consent, the declaration states, “Any preventative medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior free and informed consent of the person concerned based on adequate information.” It further notes that the sole interest of science or society is not sufficient. This pronouncement is the extension of the medical oath attributed to Hippocrates 2500 years ago, that doctors must work for the good of their patients, and never do harm. Abbreviated as the first "Do no harm" principle, this credo embodies the precautionary principle in medicine, clearly placing the interest of individual patients, above the interests of the collective or so called herd.


This precautionary principle leads directly to the view that vaccination policies must be recommended, not coerced. The doctor patient relationship depends first and foremost on trust, and coercion undermines it. When the doctor patient relationship is based on coercion, trust is a casualty, and doctors then serve the state, and by extension, the society above their individual patients. This is a slippery slope where civilized medicine has too often derailed in the past. Dr. Leo Alexander, the chief US medical consultant to the Nuremberg Trials, warned that in 1949, "That from small beginnings the values of an entire society may be subverted." He pointed out that long before Nazis came to power in Germany, a cultural shift in the medical community had quote, “Had already paved the way for adoption of a utilitarian Hegelian  point of view, with literature on the euthanasia and extermination of those with disabilities, as early as 1931.”


Following the medical precautionary principle the default position for vaccination must be recommendation, not compulsion. Individuals, for themselves and their minor children, should have the right to accept, or refuse, the preventive medical interventions based on adequate information, and without coercion, such as the threat of the loss of economic, or educational benefits. Informed consent must be the default position because compulsion on its face only undermines trust, limits the fundamental rights to life, liberty, bodily integrity, informed consent, privacy, and parental decision making. 


The Vaccinated Are Also Spreading Illness

So as I stated, in many places within the US, and in the province of BC in Canada, if you are in the health care industry, flu shots are now required if you want to keep your job, or if you simply want to be treated with respect while at work. In many instances, unvaccinated employees are either being fired, or they are being required to wear a mask for the entire duration of their shift (8 – 12 hours), and for the entire duration of flu season, which lasts for months. Unvaccinated nurses who opt to wear a mask all flu season-long and forgo a vaccine, are obviously easily identifiable, and these nurses state that they are now being treated poorly by their fellow staff, by their superiors, and by some patients and visitors, because their personal medical choice has been labeled on them for everyone to see.



Granted, I assume the initial intent of the policy likely wasn’t to label people or cause discrimination - at least I hope that was not the intent, I will give those policy makers the benefit of doubt on that point - BUT, when nurses explained to their superiors that the masking policy was resulting in visual labeling and was causing preferential discriminatory treatment, against a minority group that is openly hated, the policy makers at that point should have evaluated and changed how the policy was being enforced. OR they should have retracted and abolished the policy completely. They didn't. Instead, the policy continues to be enforced today, in the same way. As I’ve said a few times now, enforcing policy that labels a minority group of people, a group which media verbally attacks and encourages you to hate, such enforced policy is deeply discriminatory and incredibly dangerous.


Not only is the LABELLING of people discriminatory and dangerous, but the “Flu shot or Mask Up” policy itself is discriminatory because of HOW the policy is enforced. Research conducted by the highly respected Cochrane organization looked at vaccination research conducted on millions of people, and their analysis concluded that vaccination is NOT reducing the cases of severe influenza, it’s not reducing influenza hospital admissions, nor is it having an appreciable effect on the number of absentee days that health care workers take off from work. Cochrane found it’s having only minimal effect on reducing cases of influenza in healthy adults, with 71 people needing to be vaccinated, to prevent one case of influenza. The conclusion of several of their analysis’ has stated that mass vaccination against flu is a completely ineffective public health strategy. So why are health professionals being penalized if they refuse to get this shot? Looking at more "positive” flu vaccine research published by the vaccine manufacturer GSK for their Flulaval-Tetra vaccine, in a clinical trial that they conducted, they discovered that in a group of about 2400 children, influenza occurred in 5.3% (58 children) of the unvaccinated population, and 2.4% (128 children) of the vaccinated population. So their "vaccine positive" research showed that their flu shot provided benefit for 2.7% of the vaccinated, during the flu season when this study was conducted. (I could only find two studies that looked at the protective effects (not just anti-body generation for Canadian-approved flu vaccines. The two trials were both conducted on children, and this one used a larger group of participants. I have not found a comparable trial conducted on adults, and so until I do, I will use these results to illustrate my point next point.)


Ultimately, the point needs to be made that we are either terrified of influenza or we aren’t. If we are terrified of influenza, then we have to be terrified of influenza transmission FROM ALL PEOPLE, regardless of who it came from, an unvaccinated or vaccinated person. Right now, we’re only terrified of influenza from the unvaccinated. Lets put numbers to this using the Flulaval study data. Currently, we are so terrified of potential influenza from the healthy unvaccinated nursing population, that we are requiring ALL of them to mask themselves ALL THE TIME while on shift even while healthy, because 5.3% of their population will get sick at some point. Transmission of the deadly influenza from that 5.3% of the unvaccinated nursing population NEEDS TO BE PREVENTED, period, because that influenza is just so completely terrifying and dangerous. Whereas, we aren't terrified of the harmless influenza that occurs in 2.7% of the vaccinated nursing population and subsequently we do NOT need any of those nurses to mask themselves, because the influenza that those nurses might be incubating and transmitting to their coworkers and patients is just NOT terrifying at all.


So which is it? Are we terrified or aren’t we? If we’re terrified, then ALL health care providers should be wearing masks all flu season long, period. Anything short of that should be viewed as being completely dangerous AND discriminatory. If we’re not terrified of the influenza cases that continue to occur within the vaccinated population, then we aren’t terrified of influenza, and in that case, current masking policy needs to be scrapped completely and immediately, again because it's unnecessary and discriminatory.


A similar situation is also happening related to the other vaccine preventable illnesses. For example, there is now CAUSATIVE evidence demonstrating that the whooping cough vaccine is not contributing to herd immunity because the vaccine CANNOT prevent whooping cough infection or transmission in the vaccinated population. For the vaccinated population, the only benefit experienced from the vaccine is a PERSONAL one; The vaccinated population, once infected, are only protected from experiencing the severe symptoms and some vaccine recipients may have no symptoms at all. That said, when whooping cough outbreaks do occur, if a vaccinated person is exposed, they will become infected, period. They may not appear sick, or they may have only mild symptoms that aren’t recognized as whooping cough, BUT they still are infected and they remain infectious for up to 42 days. During this time, they go to school, work, public centers and stores, where they spread the illness around to other vaccinated people, unvaccinated people, babies and immunocompromised people.


In comparison, the unvaccinated who usually become sick upon exposure to whooping cough bacteria, they remain infectious for up to 38 days. BUT, as a result of the symptoms they experience, they stay home and self-quarantine for much of that time that they are infectious, and therefore they spread the illness considerably less than the vaccinated are. Once recovered from the illness, if they are re-exposed to whooping cough bacteria again, they remain completely immune, meaning they do not become infected again and cannot silently transmit the illness to others. The Health Authorities have very clearly stated that the increasing rates of whooping cannot be attributed to the unvaccinated, and illness rates are increasing because the vaccinated become infected and silently and unknowingly spread the illness around. So if we’re concerned about protecting the herd from whooping cough because it's such a dangerous and terrifying illness, why do media never mention that the vaccinated are significantly contributing to the spread of illness? This makes no sense.


Moving past whooping cough, and ignoring the fact that illness outbreaks do occur in fully vaccinated populations due to primary and secondary vaccine failure, it needs to be recognized that the vaccines themselves can cause illness, even though media denies this. Scientific research conducted on the live viral vaccines for chicken pox, shingles, rotavirus, measles and mumps, has proven that these vaccines cause shedding of virus, for weeks after vaccine administration, and these vaccine strain viruses have been proven to cause illness. For chicken pox, the vaccine package insert clearly states that the recently vaccinated should avoid close associations with susceptible persons for six weeks afterwards. Case studies have documented vaccine strain chicken pox infection months after vaccination. When it comes to rotavirus, published research (Here and Here) demonstrates that the vaccine causes shedding for up to four weeks. A published case study has also demonstrated that shedding of vaccine strain virus can sicken others. The case study explained that a child needed hospitalization because the vaccine strain virus had mutated and became more virulent. The mumps vaccine has been shown to cause vaccine strain mumps in vaccine recipient children, three weeks after vaccination, which then caused vaccine strain mumps in several family members five to seven weeks after the children were vaccinated. The measles vaccine has been shown to shed for at least two weeks post vaccination, and a case study has demonstrated that the vaccine has caused vaccine strain measles in a vaccine recipient 37 days after vaccination. In a Flumist vaccine clinical trial, it was demonstrated that shedding occurred for up to four weeks after administration of the vaccine, and the vaccine virus can be transmitted to susceptible people. The oral polio vaccine causes polio outbreaks, which is why it is no longer used in North America. Unfortunately it is still used in developing nations and vaccine strain outbreaks continue to occur. In many existing illness case studies, the researchers concluded that the vaccine strain illness was identified ONLY because they were in the midst of an illness outbreak which put health authorities on heightened alert, causing them to look more closely at the cases. So how often are vaccine strain cases and outbreaks occurring, that are assumed to be caused by the wild type viruses and subsequently blamed on the unvaccinated?



Also, signage in many hospitals now clearly states that the recently vaccinated should not visit certain areas, because of the real risk of transmission of vaccine strain illness. Recognizing how media uses fear of illness, to pressure people into vaccinating, and to demonize the pro-choice and unvaccinated for spreading these illnesses, why aren’t they informing us that we should also be taking precautions around the recently vaccinated who are shedding virus and who are capable of transmitting illness to susceptible populations.  Which is it, are we terrified of these illnesses or aren't we? To only be terrified of the unvaccinated population, when the vaccinated population is also spreading the illnesses as well, makes no sense.


Does the Herd Come First Over Individual Choice?

Recognizing that scientific research has proven that the vaccinated are spreading whooping cough more than the unvaccinated are, that the vaccinated are spreading flu nearly as much as the unvaccinated, and the recently vaccinated do shed virus and are capable of infecting others for up to 6 weeks after receiving a vaccine, in light of that, it seems we need to take a very long hard look at vaccine messaging. Media often states that these illnesses are so terrifying, that it is everyone’s moral responsibility and obligation do their part to prevent others from becoming sick. Media focuses on vaccination ONLY, as the ONLY measure that we must all take, to be a responsible contributing citizen in our civilized world. So lets take a more thorough look at that statement.


Does the health of the herd really come first, over individual choice? Either the health of the herd is paramount and is priority number one, OVER EVERYTHING ELSE, or it isn’t. IF protecting the herd is priority number one over everything else, then shouldn't we be expected to take ALL precautionary health measures, always, to stay healthy and protect others from the illnesses circulating? Restricting our protective health measures to just the convenient ones, like vaccination, that too should be considered irresponsible and immoral?


A healthy herd only results when each individual member has optimal personal health. Individual heath is supported by ALWAYS eating a healthy diet, by always getting enough sleep daily, and by never exposing yourself to factors that can make you ill or weaken your immune system, like smoking, not exercising enough, having too much stress, etc. And the health of the herd is obviously best protected by never exposing others to the illness you may be incubating even while you appear healthy, or exposing others to the illness you harbour when you are ill. If protecting the herd is paramount and priority number one, over individual choice, then shouldn’t the Government take measures to ensure that all of this is happening. They'd need to make mandates to get rid of all unhealthy food options for purchase, cut the power to all residences during specified “sleeping” hours, abolish all “unhealthy” life choices to experience or products for purchase. In addition to that, they'd need to mandate quarantine measures for anyone who has been exposed to any illness, for anyone who has received a live viral vaccine, for anyone who was exposed to a recently vaccinated person (live viral vaccines), for anyone who is ill with anything, and during outbreaks, etc. Anything less than those measures should be deemed immoral and irresponsible. As I said, our moral obligation cannot be limited to ONLY the convenient health measures like vaccination.


But, if we were forced into living that way many of you would be protesting or rioting against the Government, so I think it’s safe to say that we don’t actually believe that the health of the herd comes first over individual choice. We all expect to be able to choose for ourselves what health measures we will take in our lives, and which ones we won’t take – whether we personally disagree with the health measure or that measures just doesn’t work into our lifestyle. Seeing that, do you not see how unacceptable it is to discriminate against others for the health choices they make, simply because you disagree with them on one health aspect - vaccination. Having the right to choose for yourself is exactly that, a RIGHT TO CHOOSE, EVEN when the decisions you or others make have negative consequences on the herd. So why is it that currently the pro-choice/unvaccinated group is the only one that is being called immoral, irresponsible, dangerous and the destroyers of herd health? Every human being has been guilty of or making poor health choices at some point, and some people choose to make multiple poor choices daily on an ongoing basis. Despite that, no one is protesting that or demanding Government legislation be implemented to force people to make better choices in all facets of health.


EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING on this planet, vaccinated and unvaccinated, has spread illness, and continues to spread illness around. And recognizing that everyone is contributing, you need to start paying very close attention to media messaging, and how media proclaims these illnesses are extremely terrifying, but ONLY when transmitted from the unvaccinated populations. The silence they have, regarding how the vaccinated population is also spreading illness, is telling. To label and stigmatize the unvaccinated only, to terminate their employment, to force only the unvaccinated out of schools, to withhold Government financial support to parents of unvaccinated children, is nothing more than a punitive measure and an act of discrimination that is being used in hopes of coercing or forcing people into a DESIRED behaviour or action.  Coercive and forceful measures, when used in medical procedures, means that VOLUNTARY, informed consent, an ethical principal required by the Nuremberg Code, is not being honoured and protected.


Regardless your position in this debate, the fact that the Nuremberg Code is being ignored, is something that should raise your eyebrows and cause you to speak up loudly, in protest at a loss of ethics in medicine. To ignore the Nuremberg Code, or to relax or retract those ethical principals against all people or only against specific minorities of people, means that the atrocities of our past become a present or future possibility again. And THAT, is nothing short of dangerous. Medical freedom, medical choice, and medical ethics must be honoured, protected, demanded and respected, even when - ESPECIALLY WHEN - a person or minority is choosing differently than you would. 


Article Sources

  • Info on the Nuremberg Code Here

  • Paul Offit - the Pro-Vaccine Expert: He has created a vaccine himself. He explains that upon his request at his university, medical students now receive two lectures on vaccination, whereas, before he asked to offer those lectures, medical students were not taught anything about vaccination. He said many medical schools don’t teach anything on vaccination. Hear that Here

  • Professor Mary Holland addressing the UN on vaccination policy Here

  • CNBC article: Health Officials Know the Vaccinated Spread Illness Here

  • Flulaval Package Insert – Clinical Trial Data is Presented on Pages 18-19 Here

  • Whooping Cough: Vaccine Fails to Prevent Infection and Transmission of Illness Here

  • Chicken Pox: Package Insert – The Vaccine Virus can Infect Others – Pg 5 Here

  • Chicken Pox: 5 months after 2 siblings were immunized against chicken pox, the one child developed shingles and subsequently infected his sibling with vaccine strain chicken pox Here

  • Shingles: Vaccine can infect others with Chicken Pox – Pg4 Here

  • Rotavirus: Shedding Here and Here, and Sibling Transmission of Vaccine Derived Rotavirus Here

  • Measles: Sheding Here and vaccinated child develops vaccine strain measles 37 days after immunization Here

  • Mumps: Vaccine strain mumps infected the vaccinees and was transmitted to family contacts Here

  • Mumps: Another case of vaccine transmission Here

  • Flumist vaccine sheds for up to four weeks Here

  • Hospital Recommendations to Visitors who have been Vaccinated Here


Continue to the next post here: Safety & Efficacy - Part 23 



Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Follow Us
Please reload

Search By Tags
Please reload

  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square