Plandemic 3 film trailer - Is Vaccine Coercion an Act of Domestic Terrorism?

Plandemic 3 film trailer - Is Vaccine Coercion an Act of Domestic Terrorism?
Source: Official Account: Plandemic Documentary Series
officialplandemic First published at 22:06 UTC on December 5th, 2021.Show more

#plandemic #plandemicseries #plandemicthebook

12216 subscribers
June 20, 2022 http://johndennison.com/posts/news/is-vaccine-coercion-an-act-of-domestic-terrorism/ John Dennison

Since I am a lawyer, I try to keep up on the legal issues of the day. One the biggest ones that people face involves coercion to take the vaccine by governments and businesses alike, not to mention schools, medical institutions and family members who have bought into the common narrative.

Generally I try not to opine on or interpret the law for public consumption. There are so many issues involved in any claim that it’s hard to fairly treat them from the view of an outsider, much less one not fully versed in the individual facts of each instance or even the many statutes and legal standards of the different jurisdictions involved.

For instance, the law in the U.S. is not necessarily the same as in the individual states, nor is it the same as in Canada, the UK, or the European countries. However, there are common threads that may run through all of them.

The one I’m looking at today arises under US (federal) laws incorporating aspects of the Nuremberg Code relative to the experimental use of vaccines and other treatments on human beings. It doesn’t reference vaccines per se, but it does talk about experimental medical treatments.
Nuremberg Requirements for Medical Treatments

–“Permissible Medical Experiments.” Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg October 1946 – April 1949, Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office (n.d.), vol. 2., pp. 181-182.

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential (emphasis added). This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, 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.
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.
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 will justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
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.
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.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury disability or death.
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.
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.
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 by him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
LESS
Category News & Politics, People & Family