An RFK Jr. tweet claims that the FDA and Congress have weakened the Nuremberg Code’s protections by allowing vaccine manufacturers to bypass informed consent for minimal-risk studies, arguing that they have undermined ethical standards in medical research.

The Nuremberg Code, established after World War II, sets ethical standards for human experimentation, emphasizing voluntary consent. However, the Code is not legally binding; rather, it has influenced the development of more comprehensive and enforceable regulations, such as the Declaration of Helsinki and U.S. regulations for human research.

The U.S. regulatory framework, including the Common Rule and FDA regulations, mandates informed consent in almost all research involving human subjects. There are specific cases where full informed consent isn’t required if the research involves minimal risk and getting consent is either impractical or would affect the study’s results. This isn’t a break from ethical rules but a way to ensure that research can still be done effectively while considering ethical issues. Recent updates are about clarifying and adjusting these rules to fit new research needs, like large-scale studies that pose little risk to participants.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are groups that include scientists, non-scientists, and community members. They work to protect the rights and well-being of research participants. The idea that IRBs are easily influenced by pharmaceutical companies isn’t accurate and ignores the strict review processes and ethical guidelines they follow.

The claim that experimental Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vaccines were given without informed consent is also incorrect. Even under EUA, which is used in emergencies, people are provided with information about the vaccine, including any risks and benefits, so they can make an informed choice. The rules make sure that, even during emergencies when special vaccine authorizations are given, people are still provided with all the information they need to understand the vaccine and make a choice. This process of informed consent is a fundamental part of ethical medical practice.

An anti-vaccine account tweeted a photo of a small portion of an email between two CDC scientists discussing changing the criteria for inclusion in the study. In her caption, the anti-vaccine activist claims that studies in 1999 and 2002 found links between vaccines and autism or learning disorders, but researchers allegedly manipulated the data to invalidate these findings and protect the vaccine industry rather than public health.

The claims from the tweet rely on a small snippet from a larger email chain from CDC staff. The email chain discusses a study on the potential link between vaccines containing thimerosal and developmental disorders like autism.

They focus on refining data analysis methods, adjusting for variables like gender and birth year, and reviewing the accuracy of diagnoses. Concerns are raised about the reliability of initial findings, which suggest a possible increased risk for some developmental issues. The team emphasizes the need for careful verification and further analysis before making public statements, highlighting the complexities involved in ensuring accurate and reliable research outcomes in vaccine safety studies.

None of this points to proof of collusion within CDC to hide information. Rather, it is a discussion about how to deal with confounding factors that might lead to incorrect conclusions.

Most importantly, we know that vaccines do not cause autism.

And we know a lot now about thimerosal. Thimerosal has been used safely in vaccines, drugs, and contact solutions since the 1930s. Nowadays, most vaccines use thimerosal-free single-use vials, and thimerosal-free flu vaccines are available for those still concerned. The vast, vast majority of studies show that thimerosal does not increase the risk of autism. In addition, thimerosal has not even been used in childhood vaccines since 2001.

A new video claims that data from the Czech Republic shows that Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine increases all-cause mortality by over 50% compared to Pfizer’s vaccine, suggesting that both vaccines are unsafe and calling for an immediate halt to their use. 

This video pulls information from this substack article by optical mouse inventor Steve Kirsch. All the related data can be found here (requires a download).

As University of Pennsylvania Biostatistics Professor Jeffrey Morris points out, Kirsch did not use any data from unvaccinated individuals, only looking and comparing all-cause mortality
(ACM) in vaccinated people.

While Kirsch claims that Moderna increased ACM more than Pfizer did, he neglected to compare either vaccine to no vaccine (or the vaccinated to the unvaccinated). When Morris did so, he found that ACM was higher in the unvaccinated group than in either group of vaccinees.

Kirsch asserts that the only explanation for the Czech data is that the Moderna vaccine is deadlier than the Pfizer vaccine. However, Morris found in the data a higher rate of comorbidities in those who received Pfizer than in those who received Moerna (7.4% vs 3.7%). As we get more data, we will know if that statistic holds.