During the Nuremberg Trials following World War II, Nazi doctors were convicted of forcefully administering vaccinations. In particular, the vaccines they used had not been tested for safety. As swine flu continues to infect and, occasionally, kill individuals worldwide, governments are gearing up to vaccinate their citizens against this ‘pandemic’ strain. Media statements attributed to Canada’s public health officer, Dr David Butler-Jones, indicate that the ‘pandemic’ vaccine used here will be needed too soon to allow for adequate safety testing.
Canada was the first country in the world to sign a contract for the purchase of a pandemic influenza vaccine. That was in 2001 and the contract was valid for only ten years. In 2001, Bill C-42, The Public Safety Act, was given first reading in parliament. This act included a section which would have granted emergency powers to ministers, including the right of the Minister of Health to order compulsory vaccinations. In addition, the normal requirements for safety testing would have been waved for emergency vaccines.
The Quarantine Act, adopted as law in 2005, allows a quarantine officer to order a traveler, whether entering or leaving any point in Canada, to accept treatment or any other measure for preventing the introduction and spread of communicable disease. Of course, this means that anyone traveling to or from another country may be ordered to accept vaccination; it also includes compulsory vaccination of anyone traveling within Canada.
So, the question is, could the powers of The Quarantine Act overrule those of our Canadian Constitution, the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki? Or what if the court challenge initiated in April by Viennese journalist, Jane Burgermeister, is successful? She contends that the contamination of 72 kg of conventional influenza vaccine shipped in February, 2009 to sixteen labs in Slovenia, Czech Republic, Germany and Austria was intended to trigger a bird flu pandemic. The vaccine, produced by Baxter AG, had killed ferrets used in safety tests and subsequently was found to contain live bird flu virus. Burgermeister accuses the Austrian and US governments of empowering themselves to force vaccinations in the event of a pandemic and contends that, in the case of bird flu and swine flu, the vaccines used would not have passed legally required testing.
The origins of the 2009 swine flu are unknown. Stressful commercial methods of raising swine in huge Mexican agribusiness operations could have sparked the evolution of the novel swine flu virus. Perhaps it was triggered by sloppy lab biosafety measures. Whatever the source, it is notable that the first human infected was a Mexican, not one of the tourists who have the wherewithal to use Mexico as a play land.
Dr Butler-Jones says Canada may opt for a ‘pandemic’ vaccine which contains adjuvant. This, he says would increase its immunizing power such that more doses could be obtained and still leave enough vaccine available for the rest of the world. The downside he doesn’t mention is that, for the very reason that adjuvants boost the immune response, they also increase the chance for injury. The conventional influenza vaccines currently licensed for use in Canada do not contain adjuvant, although they do contain mercury. Mercury is not only highly toxic by itself, it also greatly increases the toxic effects of the commonly used adjuvant aluminum.
The swine flu pandemic vaccine will be given in two doses a month apart. Together with the conventional annual flu shot it will comprise a three dose regimen administered over a period of four to eight weeks. Studies have shown that vaccinations given so close together can greatly increase levels of destructive chemicals in the brain. This never-before-given combination of mercury, adjuvant and closely-spaced immune stimulation is due to be launched by the end of October.
In the last fifty years, as more and more vaccines have been added to taxpayer funded vaccine schedules, citizens’ resistance to accepting the shots has increased. This resistance, in turn, has driven public health authorities to become even more hide bound, aggressive and resourceful in their dialogues with the public. The swine flu ‘pandemic’ may prove to be a testing ground for discovering how much the public is willing to meekly succumb to the pressure to vaccinate and/or how much the authorities are willing to thoughtfully reconsider.
- Introduction to NMT Case 1, U.S.A. v. Karl Brandt et al.; Harvard Law School Library; Nuremberg Trials Project, A Digital Document Collection
- 3. Malaria experiments. February 1942 – April 1945. Conducted to test immunization for and treatment of malaria; experiments were conducted on more than 1000 prisoners at Dachau. Charged against Blome, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Handloser, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Rostock, and Sievers. (Evidence was also presented against Rose, but no judgment was reached.) No judgment was made concerning Mrugowsky. Blome, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Handloser, Poppendick, and Rostock were acquitted; Sievers was convicted.
- 8. Epidemic jaundice experiments. June 1943 – January 1945. Conducted for the benefit of the German armed forces to investigate causes of and inoculations against epidemic jaundice; experiments were conducted on Polish prisoners at Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler camps. Charged against Becker-Freyseng, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Handloser, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Rose, Rostock, Schroeder, and Sievers. Charges against Becker-Freyseng, Rose, and Sievers were withdrawn. R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Handloser, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Rostock, and Schroeder were acquitted; K. Brandt was convicted.
- 9. Typhus (“spotted fever”) and other vaccine experiments. December 1941 – February 1945. Conducted for the benefit of the German armed forces to test the effectiveness of vaccines against typhus, smallpox, cholera, and other diseases; experiments were conducted at Buchenwald and Natzweiler. Charged against Becker-Freyseng, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Genzken, Handloser, Hoven, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Rose, Rostock, Schroeder, and Sievers. Becker-Freyseng, K. Brandt, Gebhardt, Poppendick, and Rostock were acquitted; R. Brandt, Genzken, Handloser, Hoven, Mrugowsky, Rose, Schroeder, and Sievers were convicted.
- Quarantine Act, S.C. 2005, c. 20; Canadian Legal Information Institute
- Bill C-42: The Public Safety Act (LS-419E)
- Forced Vaccinations coming to Canada: MP Speaks out Against Bill C-42
- Canada virtually sure to roll out H1N1 vaccine this fall: Butler-Jones by Helen Branswell, Canadian Press; Jun 25, 2009 (article is no longer online)
- Dreading your flu shot? Get ready for a triple dose
- Re: Burgermeister court challenge; Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helskinki on Vaccines; Catherine Austin Fitts Blog; July 6, 2009 at 10:07 pm (original article is no longer online, but you can read it here)
- The Nuremberg Code
- Declaration of Helsinki
- Canada-U.S. may go differently on vaccine production