Are people calling for #Nuremberg style trials over Covid vaccine going to put themselves in the dock now that we know the vaccines worked? The Nuremberg Code is a set of research-ethics rules about voluntary informed consent for "human experiments", written after Nazi physicians used concentration-camp prisoners as experimental subjects. Legal and bioethics consensus has been consistent that it governs research protocols, not licensed public-health products after trials have finished. Covid vaccines went through large randomized trials, then emergency authorization, then full licensure in multiple countries. Mandates and workplace/school requirements were coercive public-health policy (the same category as longstanding childhood-vaccine rules), and not an ongoing experiment with a control arm. Calling that “Nuremberg” is an error that also negates the historical crime. You can still argue the mandates were disproportionate, especially for low-risk groups, without treating, healthcare workersband regulators the equivalent of concentration camp doctors. “Established evidence” is clear: Recent reviews (JAMA, NEJM-linked syntheses, CIDRAP/Vaccine Integrity Project, large cohort studies through 2025–2026) still find a net benefit against severe outcomes, especially where risk was highest: - Hospitalization and critical illness reduced, (~50% VE against hospitalization in recent seasons for updated shots) and some high-risk groups. - One conservative 2025 analysis estimated ~2.5 million deaths averted worldwide in 2020–2024 (sensitivity range roughly 1.4–4.0 million), albeit overwhelmingly among people 60+. - Known harms exist and are not imaginary but concentrated mainly in adolescent and young adult males after dose 2, in the order of 1–3 per 100,000 in the highest-risk slice, usually mild and resolving. Infection itself carries a higher cardiac risk in the same age band in several comparisons. Recent reviews have not produced a new large safety signal that overturns the overall profile. Some large studies also find lower all-cause or sudden-death rates in vaccinated vs unvaccinated younger adults, and lower Covid-associated major cardiac events after updated doses in older veterans. Those are observational and not proof of immortality but they cut against a “the shots are a mass killer” story. That record is not “zero harm, perfect policy.” Effectiveness against infection waned with variants. Early communication oversold sterilizing immunity. Risk–benefit for healthy children and young men was always narrower than for the elderly. Mandates, passports, and speech restrictions were often heavier than the evidence required. Those are fair criticisms but they are not the same as “this was Mengele with a Pfizer logo.” The people demanding “Nuremberg 2.0” typically reject the studies above as captured, fraudulent, or irrelevant. Their case is that the products were experimental poisons, that consent was a sham, and that officials, manufacturers, and compliant doctors committed crimes against humanity. Under that premise, they are the whistleblowers, not the defendants. However, if you instead accept the established evidence, their premise is false. Promoting or administering a product that reduced severe disease and death in high-risk groups is not a war crime. Discouraging it during high-mortality waves, if the evidence of benefit is real, would be the side more exposed to a “you caused preventable deaths” charge, especially for the elderly and immunocompromised. Almost no one in that camp applies the standard that way. The demand is not “hold everyone whose pandemic advice was wrong to criminal account.” It is “punish the other tribe.”

Brace yourselves. The 2026 BMJ investigation by journalist David Willman, which reports that US health officials knowingly relied on a flawed algorithm to detect potential harms from mRNA Covid-19 vaccines and suppressed internal efforts to fix it, is going to be a rough ride. 🧵

Another view..