The unforgivable

A day of reckoning will dawn

As we speak, millions are still receiving jabs of an experimental immune manipulation which has failed in several of its claimed properties viz. conferring lasting immunity; putting an end to the pandemic by achieving herd immunity; neutralizing viral loads and spread. As I have confirmed in a previous post, adverse reactions including a significant mortality rate continue to be reported in increasing numbers. But Big Pharma, captured governments and their lackeys as well as Half-Brainer members of the medical profession and others continue to defend and perpetuate the popular narrative and its prescribed interventions at all costs. Endless boosters bear testimony to the substandard level of protection afforded by the vax and is reminiscent of Einsteinian insanity – continuing to do the same actions but expecting a different outcome!

In total disregard for the overwhelming evidence endorsing natural immunity as being superior to the vaxes and the only route to herd immunity, the Keepers of the Narrative have enforced vax mandates in violation of the sciences. In fact there is no science nor any vestige of rationality underpinning the vax mandates.

In regard to the PCR-based diagnosis, to date this has still not fulfilled Koch’s postulates. Essentially Koch’s postulates are based upon a protocol which is designed to show whether a micro-organism, such as a virus, is the causative element for a particular clinical illness or not. Since the PCR is universally set at maximal amplification cycles (greater than 40) the test is measuring everything from virus to viral genetic debris (which are not infective) with the result that we have massive false positive figures in regard to ‘viable’ virus. Consequently we have no idea who has died as a direct result of Covid and who has died from co-morbidities with an incidentally detected viral genetic fragment of little consequence, giving rise to a positive PCR death.

This nefarious manipulation of multiple components of the pandemic in order to sustain a flawed narrative is in clear violation of the Nuremberg Code of 1947, specifically as regards the section dealing with ‘Permissible Medical Experiments’. This is attached below for ease of reference.

The Nuremberg Code indicates that if an injustice is being actively perpetuated based on validated evidence then the intervention should be immediately discontinued and investigated by an impartial and suitably qualified commission. Based on an objective review of the evidence, appropriate rules and guidelines would need to be formulated and applied before any further intervention resumes.  

The act of forgiveness necessarily requires that I, the aggrieved individual, abrogate my right to justice and revenge. But in return and as a condition for forgiveness I would require that the perpetrator would need to show remorse for damages incurred, empathy, ownership for the harm committed as well as a sincere and non-coerced apology.

Consequent upon the fact that Big Pharma insisted upon protection from all liability for adverse reactions to their product as a condition for sales and implementation, they abrogated one of the fundamental requirements for forgiveness at the outset. In addition, their liability is aggravated by dishonest research and the ongoing suppression and manipulation of information that reflects adverse consequences following intervention with their products. The very acts of censorship by Big Pharma and their allies occurring in all the media including medical publications, bears testimony to their full awareness of the consequences of  their actions and the need to suppress the potential for inducing vaccine hesitancy.

There shall be recriminatory consequences and they shall burst upon the perpetrators sooner than imagined. And since the perpetrators by their actions have flouted all the conditions required for clemency and forgiveness, they shall be harshly dealt with as is appropriate for those found guilty of crimes against humanity.

The Nuremberg Code (1947)

Permissible Medical Experiments

The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

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.

For more information see Nuremberg Doctor's Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75.

Further reading

It stirs

Truth in jeopardy

The full catastrophe