Fact Check: Principles in the Nuremberg Code are compatible with vaccination

Average: 1 (1 vote)

Facebook and Instagram posts shared thousands of times claim that vaccines directly violate the Nuremberg Code, a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation established after World War II. This claim is false; medical ethics and legal experts said the principles, named after the Nuremberg trials, are compatible with vaccination.

“Vaccines are in direct violation of the Nuremberg Code,” a flyer photographed and shared on Facebook in Canada on May 25, 2020 warns.

Similar claims were shared from Facebook accounts in the US state of FloridaFrance and South Africa. The claim also circulated on Instagram here

The posts have gained traction amid debate over the global search for a vaccine for the novel coronavirus.

Nuremberg Code

The Nuremberg Military Tribunals, held between November 1945 and October 1946, included the USA vs. Karl Brandt, in which 23 doctors and administrators were prosecuted for their roles in conducting medical experiments on concentration camp inmates. The verdict included a detailed description of "Permissible Medical Experiments". These 10 points became known as the Nuremberg Code.

The first point specifically upholds the principle of voluntary consent.

“The Nuremberg Code is about doing human experiments, not vaccination,” said Dr Jonathan D. Moreno, professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

“The Nuremberg Code is perfectly compatible with vaccination.”

Steven Joffe, a professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania agreed. “Vaccines are in no way a violation of the Nuremberg Code,” he said.


Anyone to start own False Check?


One way is to move away from misinformation via fact checking and to move  towards truth seeking.

The Factchecking has been misused and abused and has gained in popularity since 2000 .
It is not about debating for knowledge and truth but to spin a narrative using some data, it is a lazy tool that has gained popularity as many cannot interpret data or cannot be bothered so they get someone else to do it for them ie outsourcing thought and analysis .

‘ the US remains the largest market for fact-checking’ . Since when is US the epitome of global knowledge? 


‘Fact-checking is a process that seeks to verify factual information, in order to promote the veracity and correctness of reporting.

External post hoc fact-checking organizations first arose in the US in the early 2000s,[3] and the concept grew in relevance and spread to various other countries during the 2010s.[4] The US remains the largest market for fact-checking. Research on the impact of fact-checking is relatively recent, but the existing research suggests that fact-checking does indeed correct perceptions among citizens, as well as discourage politicians from spreading false or misleading claims.

External post hoc fact-checking by independent organizations began in the United States in the early 2000s.[3] In the 2010s, particularly following the 2016 election of Donald Trump as US President, fact-checking gained a rise in popularity and spread to multiple countries mostly in Europe and Latin America. However, the US remains the largest market for fact-checking’

This reminds me of consensus in science. Or the notion of Chrislam, ( fusion of christinanity with islam) would be interesting to know who will do the fact-checking on it.

This reminds me of Lenin, Stalin and Mao consistency.

‘ Consistency across fact-checkers
One study finds that fact-checkers PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and Washington Post’s Fact Checker overwhelmingly agree on their evaluations of claims’

However, a study by Morgan Marietta, David C. Barker and Todd Bowser found “substantial differences in the questions asked and the answers offered.” They concluded that this limited the “usefulness of fact-checking for citizens trying to decide which version of disputed realities to believe.”[9] A paper by Chloe Lim, PhD student at Stanford University, found little overlap in the statements that fact-checkers check. Out of 1,065 fact-checks by PolitiFact and 240 fact-checks by The Washington Post’s Fact-Checker, there were only 70 statements that both fact-checkers checked. The study found that the fact-checkers gave consistent ratings for 56 out of 70 statements, which means that one out every five times, the two fact-checkers disagree on the accuracy of statements.[10] The process of fact-checking is sometimes questionable, partly because the fact-checkers are just human subjects, and also because the purpose of some instances of fact-checking was unclear

The re-invention of fact checking and fake news is a a tool for manipulation and control of a narrative ( in the old days was eg. inquisition, McCarthy era, commusim fact -checking) .
Setting a monopoly over factchecking is dangerous. 

A good start is what is a fact ( and whose facts ) and what is a truth .

And there are also no absolute facts.
Eg. Mum ‘s birth day was , apparently , registered Dob. the day after the was born as both the father and the register officer had a few drinks to celebrate, they noticed the mistake and left it , said, might as well, she will be a day younger .
So from a legal fact checking point of view she has one date of birth, from a biological fact checking another day. The only absolute fact is that she was born but even that evidence can disappear one day .

Another point to bring up is the interpretation of facts.
Eg. A while ago a friend bought and send me a nice pair of shoes and told me there were other pairs but went for the lighter one ( they did not seem that light to me) . Anyway referred to lighter colour as opposed to lighter in weight .

So based you can spin the factual data which ever way you like, depending on the agenda , without actually telling a lie, , perfect disinformation model.

( will add a fun anectode, a friend of mine told me when young was told in class the chemical formula of water, next day when teacher asked what was it he raised his hand and said h,i, j k, l, m , n, o) . So teacher goes , ‘what are you saying?’ So my friend replied , you told us it was was H to O)



Martin's picture