STOP THE SHOTS WORLDWIDE, IMMEDIATELY!
The message is simple:
Stop The Shots!
Please watch the video below…
This is a public appeal for each and every person who reads this article to record your own video, upload it to the video hosting platform of your choice and post the link to your video in the comments below.
This appeal is not just for doctors.
This is an appeal to everyone.
In the video above, over 40 doctors speak out in support of #StopTheShots
The doctors are listed below in the order of appearance in the video.
Dr. Marivic Villa
Dr. Michael Uphues
Dr. Kat Lindley
Dr. Bob Apter
Dr. Mary Talley Bowden
Dr. Paul Alexander
Dr. Peter McCullough
Dr. Avani Gupta
Dr. Bruce Boros
Dr. Myhuong Nguyen
Dr. Ben Marble
Dr. Pierre Kory
Dr. Chris Shoemaker
Dr. James A. Thorp
Dr. Sally Priester
Dr. Lynnell Lowry
Dr. Chris Hall
Dr Rob Lowry
Dr. Steve Latulippe
Dr. Molly Rutherford
Dr. Calvin Blount
Dr. Erin Greer
Dr. Bryan Tyson
Dr. Mollie James
Dr. Terry Lakin
Dr. Claire Zengerle
Dr. Angie Farella
Dr. Aaron Williams
Dr. Debra Viglione
Dr. Avery Brinkley
Dr. John Witcher
Dr. Sonya Naryshkin
Dr. David Vella
Dr. Bryan Ardis
Dr. Judy Mikovitz
Dr. Ellapen Robert Rapiti:
Dr. Ana Marie Mihalcea MD, Ph.D.
“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.”
- Nuremberg Code
The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study.
All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
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, overreaching, 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 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 seems 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 judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
For more information see Nuremberg Doctor's Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75.
Please record your own video, upload it to the video platform of your choice, and then post the link to your video in the comments section below.
by James Roguski
The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.
If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.
All content is free to all readers.
All support is deeply appreciated.
James Roguski’s newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
It's a mortal sin...
How many shots are given in direct violation of Nuremberg Code (death penalty offense) ... Aren't all, as invermectine is safe? I don't know just asking...