Any "doctor" who administers, facilitates, or recommends the injection of mRNA devices, including those in the covid needles:
1. Has failed as a doctor, and as a "person of science"
2. Is committing an egregious breach of medical ethics
3. Is breaking as multiple laws and international treaties
3. Is breaching the Nuremberg Code
4. Presents a danger to their patients, and to the world at large
5. Must be exposed, denounced, shamed, and held accountable for their actions through civil liability and criminal prosecution.
We have let the insanity go on long enough. We've let the pharma-demons push and push, and violate every sacred boundary in existence. If we don't stop them, they will take everything. They'll destroy every last vestige of Nature, goodness, and beauty both on this planet, and in the human body and soul. They will edit the soul out of the body - and they've already started the process. That's what these injections are for.
If you've had enough, and you want to fight back, this letter may provide a useful template for doing so.
To the M.D.:
I've received word that you’re [administering/recommending/facilitating] covid needles to your patients. This practice violates medical ethics, as codified in the informed consent clauses of both the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Code, as well as multiple laws and regulations at both the state and federal level.
You have flaunted the Hippocratic Oath, and neglected the most basic moral responsibilities of the medical profession. You are in serious trouble, both morally and legally.
mRNA is a medical experiment. The people taking this treatment are not being told this. They are participating in a medical experiment without being told that it's an experiment, and without being informed of the level of danger to which they're subjecting themselves.
In medical school, you learned of the principle of informed consent. In order to administer an experiment, the participants must be informed of exactly what the nature of it is. They need to know that they are participating in an experiment. This principle is not only logical a priori, but formally codified in international jurisprudence in the form of the Nuremberg Code.
The Nuremberg Code was established after World War II, in response to horrific acts committed by the Nazi regime. Some of those acts included medical experiments. Thus, the Code sets forth principles of ethics that must guide all medical experimentation, to prevent such abuses from happening again.
When the doctors and officers who committed these acts were captured by Allied forces, they were put on trial in what later came to be known as the Nuremberg Trials. During those trials, the modern world’s first criminal prosecutions for medical ethics violations were conducted. Afterwards, the arguments upon which the defendants were prosecuted were condensed into a set of 10 basic guidelines, and codified as the Nuremberg Code.
The first principle of the Code reads:
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.
We know that these new injections are an experiment, because we watched them getting developed, and we know the earliest date of potential testing was 2020 - late summer to autumn 2020. Even a "standard vaccine” goes through 10-15 years of longitudinal study before reaching the public.
At the time of their unveiling to the general public in December 2020, at about 1/40th to 1/60th of the normal vaccine testing period of 10-15 years. With very little testing data, and absolutely no longitudinal data whatsoever, it is most certainly an experiment, consistent with the legal and ethical definition.
And an uncommonly negligent one, since it involves a new type of technology that has never been used on a wide scale. It works completely differently from a conventional vaccine. There is no analog to this technology in any previous vaccine approved by any medical regulatory body for public consumption. There is far more uncertainty as to the outcome of this, compared to a vaccine using the standard method. An order of magnitude more, given that it targets the patient's genetic system - the very foundation of who we are, biologically.
When even the Chief Medical Officer of the company that makes it, Moderna, openly states it as such...
Moderna boss: mRNA jabs are "rewriting the Genetic Code" we call it "information therapy" (Ted 2017)
...there is really no room for denying what it is.
What can you say in defense of this? That they’re just embellishing? Or perhaps even joking?
Other scientists have written lengthy exposés about the potentials for deep, lasting damage possible from mRNA technology, and the pathways by which it could happen, including the acquisition of auto-immune disorders and other long-term problems. Pathways even exist by which the nanoparticle could penetrate the cell nucleus, and affect DNA.
Let's look at one article in particular:
In this article, a scientist lays out a pathway by which an mRNA nanoparticle could target DNA. Although the conditions necessary would have to be "just right", and their coordination is unlikely to occur if left to chance, the question still arises: What if chance is not the only variable in play? What if there are other mechanisms inside the concoction that help it to get through the nuclear membrane, in ways most scientists still don't understand, because it's EXPERIMENTAL?
One possible answer is "Nothing. It doesn't matter. And it won't hurt anybody."
That's one possibility.
And another is that the biotech elite are genetically reengineering humanity right before our eyes.
We can, at the very least, logically deduce, with objective certainty, that this experiment is an uncommonly dangerous one. We can figure that out with logic alone, before the results of the experiment even start rolling in.
And now that they're arriving, they are painting a troubling picture. A large number of people have died in reaction to them, many more have had Bell's Palsy and other neurological disorders - and that's only the immediate aftermath. The VAERS database is publicly accessible.
What’s displayed there is just a fraction of the damage, and more is undoubtedly to come, as time goes on, and the effects of this genetic alteration begin to outwardly manifest. Who knows what chronic conditions might develop as a result of ANY new, untested vaccine - let alone a whole new type that involves genetic engineering!
Your patients need to know that they're participating in an experiment, and you haven't told them. Furthermore, they need to know how dangerous and unpredictable it is. At the very least, the participants need to know that their genetic system is being targeted. If they believe it to be a “vaccine,” then you need to disabuse them of that misunderstanding, and make sure they’re fully aware that it’s an experimental medical device, designed to alter their genetic code.
Yet, you are willfully withholding knowledge of the dangers of the experiment from your patients, deliberately allowing them to make the decision to participate based on false assumptions of benignity, and sending them into a dangerous and unprecedented medical experiment, without even telling them that it's an experiment.
This puts you in violation of the informed consent principle, and thus in breach of the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Codes, as well as numerous medical practice regulations, state and federal. And according to legal precedent established at the Nuremberg Trials, it also makes you a party to homicide. Nazis were prosecuted and hanged for this after the war.