Although I have devoted a separate page to Dr Brad Case’s book ‘Thugs, Drugs and the War on Bugs I considered it important that I devote a page on some of the quotes made by highly credentialed scientists one of whom makes mention of the Nuremberg Codes. The copy below is from the National Institutes of Health, Office of Human Subjects, Research Regulations and Ethical Guidelines, Directives for Human Experimentation (my emphasis which will become self explanatory), the link of which is:

Should you do as I have done and purchased the book, albeit I have not finished reading it, one can but draw only one conclusion in relation to Vaccinations; that they can be categorised purely as Human Experimentation because no scientific or legitimate studies have been done to prove their efficacy, effectiveness and safety of use? Simply put Big Pharma and the respective Government Agencies are in ‘violation of the Nuremberg Codes’. These are not my words but those of Janet Orient, M.D., Executive Director of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons whose quotes will follow the Nuremberg Codes.

It is also one of the reasons I devoted a page to The Three Phases of Truth since it typical of the ‘game’ played by the parties mentioned above when their pecuniary and incestuous empires are challenged by scientists and concerned parents. It some what reminds me of the phrase coined by David Icke. ‘Problem, reaction, solution.’ Similarly Big Pharma and the respective Governmet Agencies are in contravention of Article 19 the Right to Know Principle about which I have devoted a page on this web site

End of discussion.


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, 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 reasonable 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 will 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.
Reprinted from Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.

And now the respective quotes:

Janet Orient

‘Children younger than 14 are three times more likely to die or suffer adverse reactions [to the hepatitis B vaccine] than to catch the disease….. It’s one thing to bar a student from school if he is carrying an infectious disease posing a threat to other children. But to require a questionable medical treatment as a condition of attendance crosses over the line to practicing medicine …. Vaccines use school children as research subjects without informed consent, in violation of the Nuremberg Codes. School administrators and government bureaucrats could be prosecuted as war criminals.’

‘It is apparent that critical medical decisions for an entire generation of American children are being made by small committees whose members have incestuous ties with agencies that stand to gain power, or with manufacturers who stand to gain enormous profits from the policy that is made …… We suspect financial ties between vaccine manufacturers and medical groups such as the AMA and the American Academy of Pediatrics ….. Public policy regarding vaccines is fundamentally flawed. It is permeated by conflicts of interest. It is based on poor scientific methodology (including studies that are too small, too short and too limited in populations represented), which is, moreover, insulated from independent criticism. The evidence is far too poor to warrant overriding the independent judgements of patients, parents, and attending physicians, even if this were ethically or legally acceptable.

‘AAPS [American Association of Physicians and Surgeons] believes that parents, with the advice of their doctors should make decisions about their childrens’ medical care – not government bureaucrats …. Measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and the whole panoply of childhood diseases are a far less threat than having a large fraction (10 percent) of a generation afflicted with learning disability because of an impassioned crusade for universal vaccination……. The AAPS calls for a moratorium on vaccine mandates and for physicians to insist on truly informed consent for the use of vaccines.’

And form Mike Wagnitz, Senior Chemist at the University of Wisconsin who has over 20 years of experience in evaluating materials for mercury.

‘A common myth is that thimerosal is added to vaccines in ‘trace’ amounts. The concentration of mercury in a multi-dose flu vaccine vial is 50,000 parts per billion. To put this in perspective, drinking water cannot exceed 2 parts per billion of mercury, and waste is considered hazardous if it has only 200 parts per billion. Is it really safe then to inject pregnant women, newborns, and infants with levels of mercury 250 times higher that was is legally classified as hazardous waste.’
There are several more such quotes; however, I consider the above are sufficient and damaging enough in themselves regarding vaccinations.