I did a web search for medical ethics textbook and the top result excluding AI slop is Oxford Handbook of Medical Ethics and Law (2021). I found a copy online. Helsinki is mentioned exclusively in a 5 page chapter called “Medical Research”. Here is what I think is the couple pages which most strongly supports your argument:

It seems like it is really about research and not about population health interventions.

I also looked in Medical Ethics - Soft Skills for Clinical Care Providers (2025) since sounded reasonable. Mentions Helsinki on pages 13, 189 and 192. Much more briefly than the Oxford book. I tried to get a couple others but my downloads are failing.

Maybe you can suggest to me a different text that would explain it better. Demonstrate the foundational and relevant nature of this Helsinki protocol. Rather than as it appears to me which is one of many such documents (and not the most important) that contribute to the overall culture of medicine, particularly in the area of clinical research. Research and implementation being very different. I believe they ought to have different ethical considerations and while they are broadly related your repeated citing to a single document of very narrow and not-obviously-relevant scope is confusing. Seems to be over generalizing.

You are rejecting established norms and frameworks

Another very weird claim. Is advocating for mandatory vaccination really going against medical norms? I searched on pub med to find relevant literature, of which there is a great deal of it.

You can read this paper for details, Charting mandatory childhood vaccination policies worldwide, but here is an image that addresses my supposedly abnormal position:

All the orange places are the ones who have never heard of medical ethics according to you.