Ads Top

Uruguay leads the way: government and Pfizer under pressure

Uruguay is five hours behind the Federal Republic in terms of time, but an administrative court there is miles ahead of the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, at least when it comes to Corona. Now the vaccination of children has been stopped.

A few days ago it became known that an administrative court in South American Uruguay gave the government in Montevideo and the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer an ultimatum (the background is the dispute over the vaccination of minors): Within 48 hours they should use the controversial Covid "vaccines "Prove beyond a doubt and disclose the valid contracts, answering 16 questions about vaccination, which we document below. Not satisfied with the answers, the court stopped vaccination of children under the age of 13 with immediate effect .

While in Germany there is still a "facility-related vaccination obligation" for employees in the health care system, and the Federal Administrative Court in particular decided that Bundeswehr soldiers must also be vaccinated against their will ("obligation to tolerate").

Although the court stated that the Federal Ministry of Defense should examine and weigh up possible new findings on vaccination before issuing a new order for a booster vaccination, such an examination should actually have been the basis on which the court made its judgment. The judiciary in Germany is still reluctant to ask the right questions, as the Constitutional Court in Vienna has shown . A little later, Austria suspended the already decided vaccination requirement, now it has been abolished .

What's wrong with the contracts with Pfizer?
Enough is now known about the disastrous side effects of the corona "vaccines" to be concerned and only shake our heads at the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court. Likewise, the deals governments have struck with Pfizer smell a hundred miles against the wind. Members of the EU parliament have complained several times that the contracts are not disclosed or are almost completely blacked out when they have to be presented.

Transparency is something else. Currently, it is once again the behavior of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who "lost" explosive data when he was Defense Minister , that raises urgent questions. She had negotiated with Pfizer boss Albert Bourla via text messages (!) about the delivery of 1.8 billion vaccine doses worth tens of billions of euros, after which the price per vaccine dose rose from 15.50 euros to 19.50 euros, and that at a production price of less than three euros. Smells fishy, ​​one would think. And some think so too and would like to know more about the exchange between Ms. von der Leyen and Mr. Bourla, but unfortunately these chat histories have somehow got lost . "Administrative malpractices" are to blame. Oops.

If the judiciary does not stop the goings-on of politics, who else should? Which brings us back to Uruguay. There, the courageous judge Alejandro Recarey asked the questions that should now also be asked by European and especially German judges as soon as possible. You are welcome to read along here and get some inspiration.

The 16 questions for the government and Pfizer
1) Provide certified copies of any sales contracts (as well as any other related negotiations or agreements) for the so-called anti-Covid vaccines that you have signed, that you own or that are simply within your reach. In full and untested versions.

2) Without prejudice to the above, please indicate whether these instruments provide civil indemnification and/or criminal immunity clauses for suppliers in relation to the occurrence of possible undesirable effects of the purchased medicines (all medicines to combat SarsCov-2, Covid 19 and variants, whether technically defined as a vaccine or not). If necessary, write out verbatim the clauses in question.

3) Complete information on the biochemical composition of the so-called SarsCov-2 (Covid 19) vaccines that will be supplied to the national population. For each of them (types and brands). In particular, the version intended for the underage population.

4) Explain if the doses are divided into different (different) batches or lots. And if so, please clarify why and according to which criteria the individual medicinal products would be distributed to different population groups, whether the medicinal products in the individual batches differ in terms of content (or for whatever reason) and how and for whom they are distinguishable would be. If the actual existence of different batches is determined, this ensures that a sufficient number of doses of each batch are requested for a court expert examination. Properly separated.

5) Indicate whether the so-called vaccines (or which of them) contain the substance "messenger RNA". If so, please explain what that means. And above all, what therapeutic or non-therapeutic consequences - whether adverse or not - they can have for the vaccinated person. With regard to the latter, and in the case of a negative hypothesis regarding the alleged harmfulness, it should be stated whether there is scientifically proven evidence for the possible harmlessness of "messenger" RNA or whether there is simply a lack of information on this point.

6) In the same way as above and with the same details about individual or collective biological effects, report the possible presence of graphene oxide in the so-called vaccines available to the population. It should be emphasized whether actual data on this subject is available or not. Just like the question of the "messenger" RNA.

7) In addition, quite specifically and going beyond the question already asked, it is requested to communicate whether it is known that the products labeled as vaccines contain or may contain nanotechnological elements. If not, please clarify whether this is due to the actual finding of their absence or to mere ignorance of the components of the "vaccines" in question.

8) Certification as to whether the substances contained in the so-called vaccines delivered in Uruguay are experimental or not. That is, be sure to state clearly whether they are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or equivalent under standard protocols. Or if they have some other type of emergency permit. And if so, by whom and with what guarantees. And on the basis of which regulations. In short, you should also answer whether you are aware that either the manufacturer and/or the supplier, or an academic or governmental body (home or abroad) has acknowledged in any recognized way the experimental nature of the named "vaccines".

9) Provide complete and updated information on the scientific evidence available to you on the efficacy of vaccines labeled as vaccines and their possible short, medium and long-term consequences (including possible adverse effects).

10) Provide official figures showing the negative or positive impact of the so-called vaccination on the number of infections and deaths diagnosed as Covid. From the beginning of the campaign to today.

11) Indicate whether studies have been conducted to explain the significant increase in deaths from Covid 19 from March 2021 (compared to the previous year). Or do you have information that is scientific and conclusive enough?

12) Based on the total number of deaths in Uruguay diagnosed with Covid 19 since the start of the so-called pandemic, indicate the average overall age; and further, how many of these were 'because of' Covid 19 (in terms of exclusive causality) and how many were 'with' Covid 19 (i.e. having the virus present but not as the absolute or central primary cause of death).

13) There must be scientific evidence (with evidence from national or international studies) that unvaccinated status poses a health risk to the population at large (to third parties, not themselves). Or if this is not the case. If this is the case, two more things are required: establishing and demonstrating the extent of the risk and justifying why vaccination would not have been mandatory if that were the case. Add whether or not vaccinated and unvaccinated people are equally contagious. And assuming they do this to varying degrees, explain how that would be the case and in what proportion. All of this should be backed up with evidence to support the claim.

14) Clarify the reasons for the lack of informed consent regarding the elements of what the government presents as a "vaccination campaign".

15) Identify the professional technicians who directed and are directing the above campaign, with first and last names. or have provided advice at any level. Also provide the relevant data for their location in order to be questioned in court (subpoena). In addition to the information requested, information must be provided as to whether any of them are members of a foreign governmental or semi-governmental organization. or has worked for any of them in any capacity. or, where applicable, is a member of (or works in any way for the benefit of) a multinational healthcare company. If yes, please provide the names of the people and organizations or companies involved.

16) Indicate whether alternative therapies against Covid 19 (for any of its variants) have been studied. If no, please explain why these possibilities were not explored. If yes, provide the results of the research; whether they were used in Uruguay or not. For the latter option, please indicate the reasons that would have led to the exclusion of this option. Adding whether or not you are aware that they have been used successfully, even relatively successfully, in other countries.

Government reaction
"Questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines implies serious damage to the vaccination and health status achieved in our country," said the Minister of Public Health, Daniel Salinas, who is one of the candidates to preside over the Pan American Health Organization. (PAHO).

"The rulings are obeyed, but they can be criticized and this is nonsense," said the Secretary of the Presidency, Álvaro Delgado. He did not hide his anger with the magistrate and said that the government prepared the immediate appeal of the court ruling, considering it "inadmissible" and that "it puts the health of minors at risk."

Delgado cited sections of the ruling that made him angry, such as when the judge says "that he dictates (the sentence) among other things because the vaccination plan is illegal and unconstitutional and that the economic interests of private pharmaceutical companies weighed." That accusation raised the temperature in Government House.

“I am very concerned and there are many who are outraged,” said Delgado, adding: “I don't feel very proud as a Uruguayan of the ruling.”

Powered by Blogger.