PKB: Informed consent, integrity of a person, Nuremberg Code, human rights
"Plandemic" Knowledge Base Topic
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 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 seemed 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 judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
["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.]
“INFORMED CONSENT FOR THE COVID-19 INJECTIONS” (PDF, Abir Ballan, MPH, Dec. 2021)
“Exemption to Vaccination: The Moral Right to Conscientious, Philosophical and Personal Belief” (Robert W. Malone MD, 2022.05.03): “Bioethicist Arthur Caplan concurred when he said, “The Nuremberg Code explicitly rejects the moral argument that the creation of benefits for many justifies the sacrifice of the few. Every experiment, no matter how important or valuable, requires the express voluntary consent of the individual. The right of individuals to control their bodies trumps the interest of others in obtaining knowledge or benefits from them.”“
“Were you really inform consented?”(Lorna Speid, PhD, 2022.02.07):
A. What answers can you give to the following?
Before you were injected with the experimental genetic injections, were you given an informed consent form, and advised to read it carefully? YES/NO
Before you were injected with the experimental genetic injections, were you told that people who were previously injected were injured, or that some had died? YES/NO
Were you told that any injury you experience would be considered coincidental, and nothing to do with the experimental genetic injections? YES/NO
Were you advised that children had died after receiving the injections, and that the true incidence of deaths was unknown? YES/NO
If you are less than 45 years old, and male, were you advised that you would be well advised not to take the experimental genetic injections, due to the risk of cardiomyopathy, and pericarditis? YES/NO
Were you told that if you are injured, you would receive no compensation? YES/NO
If you are healthy with no co-morbidities, were you advised that your risks from the Sars-Cov-2 infection, were probably lower than your risks from the experimental injection? YES/NO
Were you advised that the mass “vaccination” campaign was itself creating the variants, and that ultimately it might not be possible to outwit the Sars-Cov-2 virus at it produces variant after variant? YES/NO
Were you advised that the experimental genetic injections were not as effective as hoped? Were you told that the duration of efficacy might only be 6 months, maximum? YES/NO
Were you advised that the experimental genetic injections were known to be producing tragic injuries that were life altering to those impacted? YES/NO
Were you told that the manufacturers were completely indemnified and would carry no liability, whatsoever? YES/NO
Were you advised that the experimental genetic injections are considered by leading scientists to be neither safe nor effective? YES/NO
if you are pregnant were you advised that your growing fetus could be stillborn, or suffer long-term consequences as a result of the experimental genetic injection? YES/NO
If you are breastfeeding your newborn child, were you told that doing so could adversely affect your baby, and that no studies had been completed to assess the risks? YES/NO
Were you told that you could be at risk for cytokine storm and anaphylaxis? YES/NO
Were you told that the risks are poorly characterized because the program of evaluation for these injections was woefully inadequate, and that the clinical trials were extremely poorly conducted? YES/NO
Were you told that the placebo group for the clinical trials collapsed when the experimental injections were granted Emergency Use Authorization? YES/NO
Were you told that the people ending up in hospital are reportedly typically doubled vaxed but captured in statistics as non-vaccinated because they have not taken the Booster? YES/NO
If you answered NO to any of the above situations that apply to you, then you were not inform consented.
B. What are your answers to the following questions?
Did you take the experimental genetic injection to keep your job? YES/NO
Did you take the experimental genetic injection so that you could travel? YES/NO
Did you take the experimental genetic injection so that you could live a normal life after receiving your “vaccine passport?” YES/NO
If you answered YES to the questions in B above, you were coerced into taking these injections. This means you were not inform consented.
Vaccine Passports: Coercive and Unconstitutional (Canadian Covid Care Alliance)
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “Right to Life, Liberty and Security of the Person“
“Canadian National Report on Immunization, 1996”: “Unlike some countries, immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution. Only three provinces have legislation or regulations under their health-protection acts to require proof of immunization for school entrance. Ontario and New Brunswick require proof for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. In Manitoba, only measles vaccination is covered. It must be emphasized that, in these three provinces, exceptions are permitted for medical or religious grounds and reasons of conscience; legislation and regulations must not be interpreted to imply compulsory immunization. Requiring proof of immunization for school entrance serves two main purposes. First, parents who have forgotten to have their children properly immunized will be reminded and can rectify the situation. Second, parents who do not wish to have their children immunized must actively refuse and sign documents attesting to that fact. Also, all provinces and territories have regulations that allow for the exclusion of unvaccinated children from school during outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases."“
Court precedents in Canada on informed consent: SCC Hopp v. Lepp, SCC Ciarlariello v. Schacter, SCC Cuthbertson vs Rasouli, SCC Carter v. Canada, SCC Starson v. Swayze, 2002 CMAC 1 (CanLII) R. v. Kipling.
Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, SC 2017, c 3: “This enactment prohibits any person from requiring an individual to undergo a genetic test or disclose the results of a genetic test as a condition of providing goods or services to, entering into or continuing a contract or agreement with, or offering specific conditions in a contract or agreement with, the individual. Exceptions are provided for health care practitioners and researchers. The enactment provides individuals with other protections related to genetic testing and test results.“
vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/vcc-soc-ontario-redacted-october-24-2019.pdf seek interim and permanent orders (in the nature of) prohibition restraining the Defendants and their officials from conducting "education sessions" and the swearing of an affidavit prior to exercising their s.2 and s.7 Charier rights of exemption from vaccinations.
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: Article 3 Right to integrity of the person: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. 2. In the fields of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular: (a) the free and informed consent of the person concerned, according to the procedures laid down by law; (b) the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons; (c) the prohibition on making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain; (d) the prohibition of the reproductive cloning of human beings.“
Enter your suggested resources for this topic in the comments section below.