Dr Sharon Goldberg speaking about mobile phone/wireless/5G technology: ”Because we have so much basic science and clinical research and it’s so clear that there are harms associated with microwave radiation (2G, 3G, 4G, 5G) exposure, it’s not possible to do human exposure studies because we know these exposures are dangerous. In order to do a study on humans, you have to go before an institutional review board with a whole proposal outlining your research plan and part of that is, what does the existing research say about the exposure you’re planning for your study participants? With microwaves, they’re going to look and they’re going to laugh and they’re going to say, well, no way, because it’s not ethical. To expose a group of people, participants, to an exposure which we know causes DNA damage, blood-brain barrier leakage, cell membrane leakage, calcium channel issues and on and on and on, any one of these effects is a really big deal. We have a whole laundry list of effects that we know are associated with microwave radiation exposure. … 5G is being rolled out without any premarket safety testing and we’re being told that it’s safe, but when you look at the scientific literature, we’ve got plenty of studies of millimetre waves (upper 5G) that show health effects.”:
Subject: Nuremberg Code
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 10:45:28 +0100
To: WRAGG, William <email@example.com>,
in view of all the information I’ve sent you so far, especially relating to the flawed and discredited ICNIRP guidelines, I think it’s correct to state the following:
Because there hasn’t been a single safety test carried out on the biological effects of 5G RF radiation, its imposition on the British people must surely, at the very least, be defined as the first ‘in vivo’ experiment on biological effects, i.e. a biological experiment that will take place in the bodies of the entire British population.
After the atrocities of WW11, the Nuremberg Code was established in order to protect humans from further atrocities. Dr Martin Pall has stated that exposing people to untested EMFs is ”an atrocity”.
If the 650 British MPs allow the British population to be exposed to biologically untested 5G RF radiation they will. at the very least, be subjecting 66.87 million people to a mass in vivo experiment without the informed consent of these 66.87 million participants. Logic decrees that in view of this, at a national level, the MPs will be acting in contravention of the Nuremberg Code:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. … 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…. there should be made known to him 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.
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,
5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur;
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.
9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end,
10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage,
THE NUREMBERG 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, 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. 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 seemed 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 judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject. [“Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10”, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.]
I will forward this on in line with previous emails.