The Nuremberg trials were against war criminals, held at war crime tribunals. I won't debate the why and what not. But prior to WW2 there was virtually no human rights. Nothing stopping slavery. Despite it being abolished. Your government sending you into a chaingang for a petty crime for life. Where every prison, asylum, hospital, school often had mass graves on site and even incinerators prior to WW2. The procedure of lobotomy won the Nobel Peace prize prior to WW2. The USA didn't stop electro shock therapy for its inmates until the 70s?

Ridiculous misconception, but the argument is not without merit. Although it has to be challenged prior to an assumed conspiracy and then it's possibly at completely different courts.

There is at the Hague, the human rights court, and other international criminal courts, as well as war crimes. But internationally not every nation is its members and not every nation complies with its rulings.

There hasn't been a war-crime. It requires war. Or the proof of warfare. Creating, war crimes. Hence Nuremberg only becomes loosely associated rhetoric where in essence it shaped the creation of human rights.

No it does not necessarily cover the question of vaccination. But for any other trial to commence. The vaccine/s have to be proved to be ineffective and lethal first. Then you can argue against individuals, or the institutions that practiced it, and the protocols enforced by them.

The Nuremberg trials were against war criminals, held at war crime tribunals. I won't debate the why and what not. But prior to WW2 there was virtually no human rights. Nothing stopping slavery. Despite it being abolished. Your government sending you into a chaingang for a petty crime for life. Where every prison, asylum, hospital, school often had mass graves on site and even incinerators prior to WW2. The procedure of lobotomy won the Nobel Peace prize prior to WW2. The USA didn't stop electro shock therapy for its inmates until the 70s?

Ridiculous misconception, but the argument is not without merit. Although it has to be challenged prior to an assumed conspiracy and then it's possibly at completely different courts.

There is at the Hague, the human rights court, and other international criminal courts, as well as war crimes. But internationally not every nation is its members and not every nation complies with its rulings.

There hasn't been a war-crime. It requires war. Or the proof of warfare. Creating, war crimes. Hence Nuremberg only becomes loosely associated rhetoric where in essence it shaped the creation of human rights.

No it does not necessarily cover the question of vaccination. But for any other trial to commence. The vaccine/s have to be proved to be ineffective first. Then you can argue against individuals, or the institutions that practiced it, and the protocols enforced by them.