Head Of EU Commission Wants To Ban Nuremberg Code.

originally posted by: puzzled2
Well that's the new definition seems words need redefining so often these days to meet the narrative.

No, that's the definition I have known all my life.

same with Pandemic and effectiveness of lockdowns and mask pre covid are all different science results post covid.

There's a new definition of "pandemic"? Never heard of that.

originally posted by: Madviking
Forced medication was part of numerous totalitarian governments in the 20th century, from Nazis to USSR. So, right out the gate, it's a very dangerous move.

She said only that it should be discussed, not implemented.

This is especially true for a disease that for non-vulnerable groups has a 99.9% survival rate, before vaccination, and for which a huge amount of people have natural immunity now. This isn't the black plague, and yet, they have used propaganda to convince people it is far worse than it is in order I believe to seize power.

The problem with CoViD-19 is not the death rate, it's the hospitalisation rate. And natural immunity doesn't prevent people from catching it again, there have been several cases like that. Also, the amount of natural antibodies diminishes with time, in the same way it happens with the antibodies that result from the vaccines, although it looks like they last a little longer.

originally posted by: Bloodworth
Anything introduced within the first 3 years is always called experimental.

Could you show a reference for that?

Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: ArMaP

There's a new definition of "pandemic"? Never heard of that.

Don't know if you saw the interview concerning Dr Fauci and 'intelligence agencies' but there was some related info posted in the thread.

In May 2009, the WHO changed the definition of 'Pandemic'; in 2015 and 2021 the CDC changed the definition of 'Vaccine' and in October, 2021 the WHO also changed the definition of 'Herd Immunity'.

originally posted by: karl 12
Don't know if you see the interview concerning Dr Fauci and 'intelligence agencies' but there was some related info posted in the thread.

I did not see that thread and I rarely watch videos, as I find them mostly a waste of time.

I didn't see any new definition of "pandemic", the only definition I found linked on that corbettreport site is the one I always knew: a pandemic is an epidemic disease that spreads across the world.

a reply to: ArMaP

So you are not very old or have no concept of a document change showing it was changed.

You didn't understand the definition changes given to you so it is not likely you'll understand the definition changes of Pandemic.

So there is no surprise you didn't know they changed the definition of Pandemic. If you interested you should google it.

originally posted by: ArMaP

I did not saw that thread and I rarely watch videos, as I find them mostly a waste of time.

I didn't see any new definition of "pandemic", the only definition I found linked on that corbettreport site is the one I always knew: a pandemic is an epidemic disease that spreads across the world.

Fair enough but the WHO did change the definition shortly before declaring the Swine flu pandemic back in 2009.

It's discussed in this video around 4:10 but if you don't want to watch it then the relevant archived links are found in the previous post link under the headers:


• Archive of WHO's "influenza pandemic" definition April 2009

• Archive of WHO's "influenza pandemic" definition May 2009"

a reply to: karl 12

Funny how nobody can cite a primary source on this.

Face it, nobody outside the internet takes the Nuremberg Code seriously.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: ArMaP

So you are not very old or have no concept of a document change showing it was changed.

I'm 58 years old, is that old enough?
But I don't understand what you mean by "a document change showing it was changed". A document that is not exactly like it was before is obviously changed, a definition written in that document in a different way implies a change in the document but not necessarily in the definition itself, as a definition can be written in different ways and still have the same meaning.

You didn't understand the definition changes given to you so it is not likely you'll understand the definition changes of Pandemic.

You could enlighten me with all of your wisdom.

So there is no surprise you didn't know they changed the definition of Pandemic. If you interested you should google it.

Knowing that there was a change is different from understanding the change, one implies knowledge, the other understanding.
For example, you could understand if I were to explain to you where I was born, but if I were to tell you that in Portuguese I doubt you could understand it, because of lack of knowledge in Portuguese.

originally posted by: karl 12
Fair enough but the WHO did change the definition shortly before declaring the Swine flu pandemic back in 2009.

Changing the way the definition is written is not the same as changing what the definition means.

Saying that "a pandemic occurs when a new virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness" is not that different from saying that "a pandemic is a worldwide epidemic of a disease".

The first definition is implying a consequence, the second is not, but the explanation of what a pandemic is remains the same: an epidemic that occurs worldwide".

As a kind of PS to the above, in my opinion the first definition was not correct because of that "with enormous numbers of deaths and illness" part, as that's not relevant to the definition. The second definition is more correct, as it applies only to the real definition, with no diversions into what the consequences (that depend on the disease) may be or not.

It's discussed in this video around 4:10 but if you don't want to watch it then the relevant archived links are found in the previous post link under the headers:


• Archive of WHO's "influenza pandemic" definition April 2009

• Archive of WHO's "influenza pandemic" definition May 2009"

Those were the ones I saw before.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Madviking
Forced medication was part of numerous totalitarian governments in the 20th century, from Nazis to USSR. So, right out the gate, it's a very dangerous move.

She said only that it should be discussed, not implemented.

This is especially true for a disease that for non-vulnerable groups has a 99.9% survival rate, before vaccination, and for which a huge amount of people have natural immunity now. This isn't the black plague, and yet, they have used propaganda to convince people it is far worse than it is in order I believe to seize power.

The problem with CoViD-19 is not the death rate, it's the hospitalisation rate. And natural immunity doesn't prevent people from catching it again, there have been several cases like that. Also, the amount of natural antibodies diminishes with time, in the same way it happens with the antibodies that result from the vaccines, although it looks like they last a little longer.

The hospitalization rate is low too.. Both the severity and fatality rates for most groups, except for the high risk, are quite low. Only those who are very old, or have significant pre-existing conditions, are high risk. The data supports this.

For example, for people under 40, the risk is extremely low. For kids, even lower. In the US under 700-800 or so children under 18 have died of covid-19, virtually all with some kind of serious condition besides covid.

According to the CDC data, in the US only 5% of covid deaths had solely covid as a cause. 95% had an average of 4 comorbidities. FOUR. Italian data is similar.

Regarding natural immunity, there isn't strong evidence that the antibodies fade, whereas there clearly is such evidence now for the vaccines hence the push for boosters.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Outerlimits13
More Elite scum trying to rule the world.. The Nuremberg code, like the US Constitution, is to protect us poor peasants from these pieces of sh*t!!!

Didn't you get the memo?

www.opednews.com...

Unfortunately, the elites of both parties care very little about the Constitution. They have to get rid of it to time the works with the totalitarian iron fist.

originally posted by: ArMaP

And natural immunity doesn't prevent people from catching it again

Do you have a source for that?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Bloodworth
Anything introduced within the first 3 years is always called experimental.

Could you show a reference for that?

Thanks in advance.

No I cant , but I remember reading that scientist need a minimum of 2 to 3 years of data collection before they can state any information.

How can they think of that?

originally posted by: Madviking
The hospitalization rate is low too.. Both the severity and fatality rates for most groups, except for the high risk, are quite low. Only those who are very old, or have significant pre-existing conditions, are high risk. The data supports this.

The hospitalisation rate may be low when compared with other diseases, but with many infected people is enough to fill the hospitals, and that's the real problem.
When the hospitals are full of people infected with CoViD-19 they cannot take care of other people and the hospital's staff is overworked, with the consequences that they start being less effective and more likely to not be able to perform their duty, resulting in hospitals full of patients and with little staff.

For example, for people under 40, the risk is extremely low. For kids, even lower. In the US under 700-800 or so children under 18 have died of covid-19, virtually all with some kind of serious condition besides covid.

According to the CDC data, in the US only 5% of covid deaths had solely covid as a cause. 95% had an average of 4 comorbidities. FOUR. Italian data is similar.

You are talking about mortality again, that's not the real problem.

Regarding natural immunity, there isn't strong evidence that the antibodies fade, whereas there clearly is such evidence now for the vaccines hence the push for boosters.

Tell that to the people that were infected twice.

originally posted by: litterbaux
Do you have a source for that?

Here's one.

Protection and waning of natural and hybrid COVID-19 immunity

I saw a different article a few months ago that compared the waning of the natural and vaccine-induced immunity, and it said more or less the same as the one on that link, that natural immunity lasts longer but starts waning a relatively short time after infection.

originally posted by: Bloodworth
No I cant , but I remember reading that scientist need a minimum of 2 to 3 years of data collection before they can state any information.

I found this (What Happens in a Clinical Trial?) and this (How were researchers able to develop COVID-19 vaccines so quickly?), and it looks like they give/gave more importance to the number of people involved in the trials than on the time it takes. The time was shortened by superimposing the trials, so while phase 2 was still going they started phase 3.

The result was that some things were only discovered during phase 3 when they could have been discovered during phase 2, if they had taken the usual time to do it.

From the first link it looks like even after FDA approval, any medication is still considered as being in phase 4 of the trials, so it looks like we have been used as guinea pigs for far longer than we thought.

PS: Personally, I consider we lack enough data for mid and long term side effects, that's why I waited 9 or 10 months before taking the vaccine, and I only did it because I didn't want my sisters, who live with me, to feel responsible for infecting me in case that happened, as they contact many more people than I do (I mostly work alone) on their work and it is easier for them to be infected (both were vaccinated 5 or 6 months before I was).
As I'm not that worried about long term effects on myself I decided the pros were more than the cons I decided to be vaccinated.

PPS: no side effects to report after 2 months.

a reply to: ArMaP


All fair points there ArMap - am not really well versed on the legal side of things but did see this article by author Patrick Wood and wondered what you made of it.

When the FDA approved Comirnaty on August 23, I wrote the next day, FDA/Media Shell Game: Pfizer ‘Vaccine’ Was Not Approved After All and concluded, “The FDA and Pfizer have just played a shell game that leads the world to think that the Pfizer drug has been approved, but it clearly has not!”

Now a federal judge has said exactly the same thing: the Pfizer EUA and Comirnaty shots are NOT “interchangeable”.

Federal Judge Rejects DOD Claim That Pfizer EUA and Comirnaty Vaccines Are ‘Interchangeable’

Cheers.