The Nuremberg Trial
Michelle’s Blog, 28/09/2019
The Nuremberg Code of medical ethics was devised in the aftermath of the Doctors’ Trial of 20 of the physicians who had conducted medical experiments on prisoners in Nazi concentration camps. The Doctors’ Trial was part of the larger Nuremberg trials of 1946-7.
Although it has never been officially adopted by any nation or medical association, the code is seen to be ‘the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research’. Its influence on medical ethics and human rights law has been profound – especially its first and most basic principle, that of informed consent. (For a more on the code see this article in the New England Journal of Medicine.)
The telecoms industry may claim that that 5G (and indeed 2G, 3G and 4G) are purely technology but a huge body of research now exists showing that mobile telephony has significant effects on the health of humans, animals and the environment. So, far from being ‘just a technological development’, the roll out of 5G should be recognized for what it is: a massive medical experiment in which we are all involved whether we wish to be or not. And as such it should abide by the provisions of the Nuremberg Code on medical ethics.
To make things more interesting, new technology allows telephone companies to hide their antennas and boosters in street lights and on street poles:
So what does the code say and how does the roll out of 5G breach its provisions?
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 reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
Given how little is known about the effect of 5G radiation on the health and wellbeing of humans, animals and the environment (since no trials have been carried out) do we have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable us to make an understanding and enlightened decision about whether we want it? No.
Have the effects upon our health or person, which may possibly come from our participation in the experiment been made known to us? No.
And which of us has been asked, let alone made an affirmative decision, whether we want our homes, our workplaces and our streets bathed in 5G radiation?
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.
Is there any consensus that the internet of things’ is actually going to benefit society in ways that could not otherwise be achieved? The telecoms industry insist that it is, but do we agree? Indeed, have we even been asked?
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.
There has been no research into the effects of 5G so we have no idea whether its rollout will justify the performance of what is, effectively, an experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
There has been no research into the possible physical and mental suffering and injury of the 5G roll out but there is now a very substantial body of evidence suggesting that 2G, 3G and 4G can cause physical and mental suffering and injury. Surely that should be taken into account before a more powerful version of the same is rolled out?
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.
We do not know for certain whether death or disabling injury will result from the roll out; growing evidence of the link between electromagnetic radiation from 2, 3 an 4G telephony and cancer would suggest that it might. One can, I suppose, accept that those who are pushing 5G through, while not physicians, will certainly serve as subjects of the experiments – but so will the rest of us.
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.
Is there a humanitarian problem that is going to be solved by 5G that could not already be solved by 4G? Does talking to our bathtubs or our fridges cure any diseases or solve any problems? Are there really any medical interventions that existing technology is not already addressing?
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
Since no none has any idea of what the health or environmental outcomes of 5G are going to be how can this provision be addressed at all?
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.
What do telecoms companies know about the possible health or environmental outcomes of the roll out of 5G? Are they scientifically qualified? Are they employing the highest degree of skill and care in caring for us, the subjects of their experiments?
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 seemed to him to be impossible.
So, if we don’t like 5G and/or think it is have a damaging effect on our health or environment, how are we to bring it to an end? It is being thrust upon us without our consent and there are no mechanisms by which we can require it to be removed. Try removing a smart meter if it has already been installed and you will get some idea of how impossible it woud be to have a 5G antenna removed from outside your front door.
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 judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
If scientists were genuinely in charge of the roll out, then one might have some faith in this provision of the code. But in fact it is being driven by industry, not by science and the chances of industry terminating it voluntarily until massive class actions are taken against them is negligible.
Thank you to the British Society for Ecological Medicine for raising this issue – only one among many discussed in a fascinating but truly alarming conference – 5G and Health – the Facts, Risks and Remedies – to which I went yesterday. A fuller report can now be found on the FoodsMatter site here.