Thread by @katy_whitton

Of the back of my Nuremberg Code thread, some have been asking whether there is a legal basis for papers to have be served to Colchester Hospital

FYI I am not a lawyer, I just like researching random facts on the internet

So, Is the Nuremberg Code legally binding?

Let's see...

Well, in a nutshell, no it's not

(sorry to disappoint)

The code is an "ethical framework"

That means it's stuff you SHOULD be doing, not stuff you HAVE to do

Even if it were legally binding, the Nuremberg Code would only apply in Germany where it was codified

It was never adopted formally by the UK or, as far as I can tell, any other Government

And even Germany didn't put it into formal law

It's not legally enforceable

So in this respect, the Covidiots don't really have a legal leg to stand on

Also, interestingly, the Nuremberg Code only applies to active experimentation on humans so does not apply once the vaccine has been rolled out

Hold on, hold on, I know what you're going to say...

The Covid Vaccine is NOT under active human experimentation

It has come out of clinical trials and has been approved for use by the varying health bodies in different countries

You're going to argue that we're *still* being experimented on

This is untrue....

As I mentioned in my previous thread, the COVID-SARS2 vaccines are based on existing SARS vaccines that have been trialled for decades

No "experiments" were needed, they just needed to collect data about how effective the vaccine was...

https://twitter.com/katy_whitton/status/1450895562488827913

We're still in the data collecting stage

Not an experimental stage

The vaccine is approved, no experiments are needed

What they do need is data on how well it is doing in a real-world scenario and any side effects that may occur outside of a clinical trial environment...

Your next argument will probably be "Well if there are side effects, they must still be experimenting so it's a breach of the Nuremberg code Ha Ha!"

No.

People take drugs for all different things and different drugs react differently with each other....

They can't possibly test for ALL combinations of EVERY drug everyone on the planet takes

That's where the DATA COLLECTION comes in

It's still not experimentation

Now for your next argument... vaccine passports

The Nuremberg Code never once mentioned the curtailment of free movement through vaccine passports

Something else that's legally binding does but we'll get to that in a minute...

While you could argue that the Nuremberg code references "consent" this is in relation to scientific experimentation

What it does not cover is you getting in a hissy fit because you have to show an app or bit of paper to get into your local Nandos

Vaccine passports are policy documents and there use is decided upon by the government, not the scientists who abide by the Nuremberg Code

So basically the Nuremberg code was only ever relevant during the research and trial phase

And then it would only apply to the Pharma companies completing those trials

The NHS has nothing at all to do with the Nuremberg Code, they are merely supplying the vaccine, the were/are not part of the experimental phase

So, I mentioned earlier that there *was* something the Covidiots could have used to make an actual legal case

What is it?

The Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act enshrines into law certain freedoms that we can all expect like the right to life and the right to a fair trial

So let's have a look at it, shall we?

You might want to grab a cup of tea...☕️

Medical treatment is spread across a few of the Articles of the HRA. Most relvant are

Article 2 – the right to life
Article 3 – the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment
Article 5 – the right to liberty
Article 8 – the right to respect for an individual's private life

Article 14 - The right not to be discriminated against

So the people who served papers should have used the Human Rights act and claimed that the NHS is in breach of the above articles

However I suspect they don't like the HRA and want it dropped as it's "soft on criminals "

BUT

This is where it gets interesting (and it wouldn't be one of my twitter threads without a plot twist)

They may claim that Article 5 "The Right To Liberty" is lost as they can't go anywhere without a vaccine (or passport in some cases)

But No! They'd be wrong

While the Human Rights Act gives the right of liberty, there are some caveats, one of them being if you're a criminal (kind of obvious) so you can be detained if you have committed a crime, are on bail, need to be detained due to mental health issues etc

But here's the fun bit..

Drum roll please

The following is also in Article 5 of The Human Rights Act:

the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants

So you can legally be locked up if you're a risk of spreading Covid and there is nothing you can do about it apart from appeal

So even if the Covidiots served papers complaining of a breach of the Human Rights act instead of incorrectly using the Nuremberg Code....

They could still legally be locked up if the Government believed they were a risk to public health

These guys really should have done their research before chucking a load of brown envelopes at a poor NHS worker

They also mention a couple of other alleged laws/codes broken in the video

I'm no longer linking to it as I don't want to give them free advertising

Let me know if you want me to dissect these as well

I think one was the Child Endangerment act which would be a good one 😂

I've covered the Pope reference... and boy, it's a doozy

Check it out here (and grab a stiff drink before you start reading)

https://twitter.com/katy_whitton/status/1451348084819177475