We know the social atmosphere surrounding the inception of COVID-19 “vaccines.” Now that vaccine mandates have been introduced around the world, it’s important to analyze a few points that surround SARS-CoV-2 shots to identify if you should be hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Previous posts dealt with vaccine safety and vaccine effectiveness, now let’s explore COVID-19 vaccines and medical ethics.
Now that we are encountering mandates and one of the biggest campaigns for mass vaccination all around the world, it’s important to keep in mind moral principles. In doing so, let’s examine medical ethics, the Hippocratic Oath, and the Nuremberg Code.
Since 1847, the American Medical Association (AMA) has disseminated several values related to physicians’ conduct and treatment towards patients. There is an established Code of Medical Ethics that doctors and scientists in the medical field should follow. The code deals with issues related to doctor-patient relationships, patients’ privacy, patients’ decision-making rights, informed consent, and improved care. Codes of ethics are meant to provide a basis and guidance for those involved in the medical field.
The Hippocratic Oath
When considering COVID-19 vaccines and medical ethics, Hippocrates is a very important figure in the practice of medicine that we must remember. He was admired as a physician and teacher and was considered the Father of Medicine. Hippocrates was influential due to his role in the development of medicine and medical ethics.
He affirmed high standards towards patient treatment and laid down guidelines for physicians with the institution of the Hippocratic Oath. Here are some important points from the Hippocratic Oath:
- I will teach my pupils my art without reward or agreement… who shall bind and tie themselves by a professional oath, but to none else.
- With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.
- Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so.
- I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
- I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
- I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
- I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.
- I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability.
- I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
- Above all, I must not play God.
As you can see, the Hippocratic Oath urges physicians to respect patient confidentiality, to provide humane treatment to patients, to concentrate on healing while avoiding conflict of interests, and to help patients take preventative measures so they can avoid disease. The Hippocratic Oath advises physicians to avoid playing God or being know-it-alls, as well as to avoid harming patients. These are concepts that physicians should follow in their professional life to be considered doctors of moral character.
However, the practice of medicine seems to be tainted and negatively influenced by pharmaceutical forces, insurance companies, and bureaucrats in power. The Do No Harm principle is not being followed. Physicians all over the country are refusing to provide life-saving protocols, such as safe inexpensive repurposed drugs (ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin) to treat SARS-CoV-2 – just because bureaucrats say that they are not specified to be used for this virus.
Most physicians are using treatments and drugs that cause more harm than good. When people are admitted to the hospital and given a COVID-positive diagnosis, they are given remdesivir (which has more side-effects than healing properties) and they are put into ventilators (early invasive mechanical ventilation is associated with increased mortality). These protocols, even though being endorsed by the CDC, the NIH, and Dr. Fauci, have caused more harm than good to patients during this pandemic.
At the same time, medical authorities keep pushing the experimental shots despite the countless adverse effects that they are causing. We are seeing that physicians are refusing treatment to unvaccinated people, and they are even denying proper treatment to those who have suffered adverse reactions as a result of the COVID-19 “vaccines.” All these are violations to the Hippocratic Oath and medical ethics.
Another series of rules of conduct that we should consider when exploring COVID-19 vaccines and medical ethics are those related to the Nuremberg Code. It is a set of principles dealing with ethics in human experimentation. The Nuremberg Code was created as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II.
The Nuremberg trials were a series of military tribunals held in Nuremberg (Germany) by the Allied forces under international law. During these trials, prominent members of the leadership of the Nazi party were tried and prosecuted for war crimes. These individuals were leaders in the government, military, business, and medical fields, who were accused of planning and carrying out the Holocaust. Many of them were sentenced to prison or death.
Hundreds of German doctors under Hitler’s regime conducted medical experiments in the Jewish population, which were considered atrocities. The Nuremberg Code was created to prevent right-out torture and future medical malpractice. The code has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, further codified in the US Code of Federal Regulations, and, also, adopted by the FDA.
The following are some of the most important declarations from the Nuremberg Code:
One of the Nuremberg Code’s tenets is informed consent. This entails that people must receive sufficient information prior to being part of human experimentation. Participants in clinical trials should know the duration, purpose, method, all possible hazards expected, and effects upon their health, which may come from their participation in the experiment.
➡️ Most people who receive the SARS-CoV-2 shot are not receiving all information related to the possible side-effects of these gene therapies or the duration in which they should have to engage in taking the shot or boosters.
RIGHT OF REFUSAL
Another tenet is the right of refusal. It states that people have the right to refuse participation in an experiment or medical treatment. People taking part in experimentation must do so exercising free will, without experiencing any force, fraud, deceit, duress, or coercion of any nature.
➡️ Currently, people’s right of refusal to take part in experimental shots is compromised because they are being threatened and/or coerced to do so. Authorities are mandating these vaccines for some workers and/or coercing others to take them or they run the risk of losing their jobs and their ability to participate in civic life. Forcing people in any way to participate in experimental vaccination is unethical, unconstitutional, and violates the Nuremberg code.
SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION
Experiments should be designed and based on the results of prior experimentation such as animal studies. This helps to anticipate possible results for humans and prevent unnecessary harm.
➡️ The COVID-19 “vaccines” did not go through the normal procedures of experimentation. These “vaccines” were launched after 8 months when it generally takes 8-15 years until a pharmaceutical can be used by the public. Additionally, current shots have not been tested in animals – animal trials must precede human clinical trials in order to avoid harming the public unnecessarily.
The degree of risk taken during an experiment shouldn’t exceed that of the problem that it’s trying to solve. No experiment should be conducted, where there is a reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except maybe when the experimental physicians /scientists are willing to serve as subjects. And when the possibility of injury, disability, or death exists, there should be proper preparations in place to protect participants.
➡️ The “cure shouldn’t be worse than the disease.” Having a virus with a high survival rate (over 99% for most individuals under age 70) doesn’t justify the use of a pharmaceutical that can cause myocarditis, strokes, clotting disorders, vaccine-associated enhanced disorders, or death.
During the first months of experimentation, there were over 180 deaths post-vaccination as well as numerous adverse effects. These warning signals were ignored and even hidden. Generally, when there are 50 deaths associated with a pharmaceutical product, the product gets removed from the market. During Pfizer trials, participants who experienced adverse effects were dismissed and told that what they were experiencing was “in their head” and not related to the shot.
At this point, having surpassed 20,000 deaths and 1,000,000 adverse events, SARS-CoV-2 shots should be recalled because they need to be properly and ethically tested for years. At the present moment, mass vaccination should stop because of its low safety profile.
Ethical Physicians and Scientists
Lastly, we couldn’t discuss COVID-19 vaccines and medical ethics without considering physicians’ points of view. In September of 2021, during an International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists’ summit, 11,990 ethical doctors and scientists signed the Physicians Declaration. This took place due to the current state of affairs and the imminent threat to humanity created by COVID-19 policies.
Based on their cumulative experience, 20 months of research, millions of patients treated, hundreds of clinical trials performed, and scientific data shared, they demonstrated and documented their understanding and success in fighting SARS-CoV-2. While upholding the Hippocratic Oath, they reached a consensus on the three foundational principles below.
IT IS RESOLVED, THAT HEALTHY CHILDREN SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO FORCED VACCINATION
- Negligible clinical risks from SARS-CoV-2 infection exist for healthy children under eighteen.
- Long term safety of the current COVID vaccines in children cannot be determined prior to instituting such policies. Without high-powered, reproducible, long term safety data, risks to the long-term health status of children remain too high to support use in healthy children.
- Children risk severe, adverse events from receiving the vaccine. Permanent physical damage to the brain, heart, immune and reproductive system associated with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-based genetic vaccines has been demonstrated in children.
- Healthy, unvaccinated children are critical to achieving herd immunity. Natural immunity is proven to tolerate infection, benefiting community protection while there is insufficient data to assess whether Covid vaccines assist herd immunity.
IT IS RESOLVED, THAT NATURALLY IMMUNE PERSONS RECOVERED FROM SARS-CoV-2 SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY RESTRICTIONS OR VACCINE MANDATES
- Natural immunity is the most protective, and longest-lasting solution against the development of COVID-19 disease and its more serious outcomes.
- Naturally immune persons are at the lowest risk of transmission, thus should not be subject to travel, professional, medical or social restrictions.
- Natural immunity provides the best source of herd immunity, a condition necessary for eradicating the Covid virus.
IT IS RESOLVED, THAT ALL HEALTH AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS SHALL CEASE INTERFERING WITH PHYSICIANS TREATING INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS
- Early intervention with numerous, available agents (ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, zinc sulphate, quercetin, melatonin, prophylactic anticoagulation, corticosteroids, fluvoxamine) has proven to be safe and effective, and has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
- No medicine already given regulatory approval shall be restricted from “off-label” use, particularly during this global humanitarian crisis caused by a rapidly mutating virus, which requires quick to adopt treatment strategies.
- Health agencies shall be prohibited from interfering with physicians prescribing evidence-based treatments they deem necessary, and insurance companies must cease blocking payments for life-saving medicine prescribed by doctors.
Scientists and physicians who practice medicine ethically, aiming to avoid harm to patients and to help them heal, believe that violating these principles unnecessarily and directly puts people at risk of dying. They recommend that authorities worldwide legislate or take executive action to prohibit the three practices described above.
Are You Hesitant to Get COVID-19 “Vaccines”?
If you are hesitant to get a COVID shot, you may be right to be. A reason why you should be concerned to get COVID-19 “vaccines” is because of the countless violations of medical ethics, the Nuremberg Code, and the Hippocratic Oath that have been taking place during the past year. Even if these “vaccines “ were safe and effective, procedures taking place during the clinical trials and vaccinations sites violate moral principles that were established by Hippocrates and post-holocaust. It’s time to give these violations a serious look so they can be removed from practice and atrocities from the past can be avoided.
To a Fitter Healthier You,
The Fitness Wellness Mentor