This wikilog article is a draft, it was not published yet.

The nightmare before Christmas

⇠ Back to Blog:Fabrice

Since the covid started, the deterioration of our society and civilization has been going pretty quickly, although, because everything is locally linear, one could have the misleading feeling that it's nothing very dramatic, all in all. Well, let us have a look:

1. Shattering medical ethics and principles, such as bodily autonomy, the Nuremberg code, Hippocratic oath...
2. Political corruption of science, fraudulent practices and publications to support an agenda.
3. Censoring of opposition, including of experts and scientists of international reputation.
4. Police-state system with brutal repression and generalized control.
5. Fines and jailtime for people refusing compulsory inoculation of an experimental, obscure treatment.
6. Opening and operating camps to quarantine people arbitrarily.
7. Social and professional pressure to coerce people to do so, including firing them.
8. Society of indifference, selfishness, distancing from friends and family.
9. Segregation and apartheid system, based on ostracization.
10. Society of delation, incitement to hatred.
11. Child abuse.

I will first substantiate the above claims, with proofs based on reports from mainstream media. This does not happen everywhere and/or simultaneously, but these are things that are happening. They do not happen in North Korea or places that are, supposedly, dictatorships, but in places such as Australia, France, Austria, Germany, etc., places which are, again, supposedly, democracies, where authorities and people respect human rights and personal freedom, to the extent that, in 2012, they earned a Peace Nobel prize for "the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights". If such things can happen anywhere, especially in this privileged sphere of mutual influences, they will happen everywhere. In fact, it can be observed how the situation spreads like the virus itself, with surges in one location that gets replicated and amplified in others, and rotating. In a later post, I will ask the question to those who agree that there is some evidence on the current state of things, where do they think a limit should be put, if they are not of the opinion that things have been too far already. For those who agree things have been too far already, I will ask what they think should be done. For today, the facts.

Shattering medical ethics and principles, such as bodily autonomy, the Nuremberg code, Hippocratic oath...

There is much to say about the Nuremberg trials, but one thing which earned a large consensus is the Nuremberg code (Nürnberger Kodex) that emerged from the so-called Doctors' trial. (more on what this is).

It is important that you read (or read again) the rules of this code:

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, 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.
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.
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.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
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.
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.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
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.
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 seems to him to be impossible.
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 judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Now the most basic sophistic trick to get rid of any rule, of any principle whatsoever, is to say that the rule does not apply to exceptions and make whatever you want to violate into such an exception. For instance, "We value freedom of speech! Except for..." and follows the list of what you want to censor, with or without a justification why this is an exception. Here, one can assert that mass vaccination of the world population is not an experiment, but a treatment.

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1458925515205660678?s=20

Let us look at the evidence:

1. Wikipedia: "The ongoing Phase III trial, which is scheduled to run from 2020 to 2022"
2. Cosmos magazine: "Are COVID-19 vaccines experimental? Yes."

This correction from Reuters [1]:

<quotation> Correction, April 30, 2021: An earlier version of this check described the Pfizer/BioNtech, Moderna and J&J vaccines as being approved for use in the United States. This has been corrected to say these vaccines have been authorized for emergency use by the FDA. Vaccine makers will need to apply to the FDA for full approval to continue use after the pandemic. </quotation>

Note that I did not discuss the safety of the vaccine, but on whether it is experimental or not. It is. Therefore, by rule n°1, it is legally forbidden to force people to get it or even coerce them.

[2]

One can consult doctors who benefited financially financially or otherwise from vaccine companies: https://www.eurosfordocs.fr/dashboard/professionnel_beneficiaire

Rebuttals first invalidate the general principle with the argument of exceptions, for instance referring to "legally valid voluntary consent", making it possible for your lack of consent to be invalid anyway, i.e., you can object as long as we let you object. Also, they say the vaccines are not experimental because they have been shown to be effective, confusing the various issues at stake. Finally, they make the absurd point that people retain the right to refuse vaccination, which is what the Nuremberg code grants them anyway, so would that be the case, what are they even defending? They also overlook coercion.

Political corruption of science, fraudulent practices and publications to support an agenda

Corruption of science consists in, for instance, altering the scientific method, from a process of inquiries, doubt, critical stance, open debate, distrust of authority to, instead, a process of certainties, dogma, conformism, silenced opposition and blind trust to authority.

I am teaching my students to distrust authority and always keep a critical outlook on everything they are being said which they cannot directly check or establish by themselves, always weighting any external claim that is *given* with the probability that it could be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, misunderstood or, even, possibly wrong. The probabilities vary according to circumstances and evidence, but should never be replaced by a blind trust to some external authority. This very statement enters into the list of precepts that they should critically examine and question.

Instead, we see with covid an era where we should "trust Science", as exemplified by the https://www.trust-science.org initiative by the Optical Society of America, where people are asked to pledge their trust to science. "Scientific champions" are then identified, although it's not clear if they are the people we should pledge our allegiance to or if they are people who are particularly exemplary at demonstrating their total trust of science.

What and/or who is science, though? Anthony Fauci would tell you that he is Science:

New-Zealand prime minister also qualifies for this role, claiming to "continue to be your Single Source Of Truth" and asking to "dismiss anything else":

She confirmed more officially this statement by stating in the parliament that I stand by my statement in its entirety and stating it again in full: "We will continue to be your single source of truth. We'll provide information frequently. We will share everything we can. Everything else you see—a grain of salt."

If you are more likely to listen to entertainers on social media than political officials, then you'll sure find such people to tell you that people much much smarter than you and me have decided so do as you're told or, to quote the original, how much more? don't know, don't care, don't be a prick.

Censoring of opposition, including of experts and scientists of international reputation

Who are these experts? I will highlight their particular qualifications regarding the topic under consideration:

1. Robert Malone, who first proposed to use RNA as a drug, and is thus the pioneer of mRNA vaccines. Here is an extract from The tangled history of mRNA vaccines :

1. Didier Raoult
2. Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize for the discovery of AIDS, who first pointed out the man-made origin of the virus, in particular due to strands of other viruses, including AIDS, in the Sars-cov2.
3. Alexandra Henrion-Caude
4. Christian Perronne, a specialist of "Maladie infectieuse émergente" (emerging infectious diseases)

and vice-prsident of the "European advisory group of experts on immunisation" to advise the WHO on European vaccination policies,

1. [Jean-François Toussaint]
2. Laurent Toubiana
3. Charles Hoffe
4. Peter McCullough
5. Michel de Lorgeril

Here is a list of another 250 medical doctors, who have been censored to publish a tribune [3] [4]

The Problems With Censoring Doctors Over Their COVID-19 Stances by Buzz Hollander.

Covid-19 : ces lanceurs d’alerte menacés pour avoir dit la vérité sur la pandémie

Jean Stevens

[5] mentions the following people as having been intimated or even dismissed from their post: Dr. Thierry Lagrange, Dr. Benoit Ochs, Dr Nicolas Zeller, Dr Hélène Rezeau-Frantz, Dr Théron, Dr Agret, Dr Le Grall...

Financial interests, corporation secrets, business over science, profit over humanity

In a normal situation, the world would unite to fight a common enemy. What happens instead is a reduced set of actors seizing control and benefits at the expense of everybody else with good intent, by exploiting their naivety and goodwill. Read for instance this testimony from a Moderna-trial candidate who participated in an early-stage experiment only to realize this was just a step for the company to develop and validate its product.

Opening and operating camps to quarantine people arbitrarily

December 17 Press briefing:

Child abuse

This page of Vaccine Death & Injury Testimonies, gather cases of serious injuries and death caused by the vaccine. It is maintained by the dad of Ernesto Ramirez Jr., who died five days after the injection for having an "enlarged heart". It is the way for Ernesto Ramirez (the father) to cope with his unbearable loss. The gallery where he collates pictures of their journey together, him and Jr., from a baby to the threshold of young adulthood, with the single dad always exhibiting the same quiet, tender smile of peace, pride and fulfilment, features one photo only where he is not smiling, the one where he stands empty in front of the coffin of his child.

References

— • 12:32, 9 January 2022