Δημοσιογραφία Αναλύσεις Mandatory Vaccination part 1: the Legal Aspect
| Mandatory Vaccination part 1: the Legal Aspect |
|
|
|
| Δημοσιογραφία - Αναλύσεις | ||||||
|
31.5.2021
This research on
Mandatory Vaccination was published on January 7 2021 on my personal website in
Greek. It immediately gained a lot of attention by citizens and independent
journalists who wished for a moderate voice presenting official data and not
just another opinion. Soon after, a number of volunteers undertook the task to
translate it in English; even without professional skills, they managed to
provide a very descent translation. I thank them from the bottom of my heart
for putting so much effort, just for the sake of our information.
In this research
I present data relating to the legal status of “mandatory vaccination”, as well
as to the political stake of the issue. I have used the initial sources on each
argument, so this can serve you as a reference for future research. Issues of
sole local interest were not included in this translation. However, a number of
Greek laws have remained, because they are very similar to those of other
countries: most are influenced by the post-WW2 era and the UN charters enacted
in that period.
It is best to
download the whole PDF and save it as your reference. If you like the content
of this material, feel free to share it with others and communicate its content
lavishly. The distribution of this research is free.
This survey was
conducted and written by me, with the collaboration of the independent
researcher Ioannis Lazarou. Living in memorandum Greece (a country under
economic and political seize for years now), we have dedicated all of our time
to this research voluntarily for the sake of Information and Humanity.
If you wish to make a voluntary contribution to our work, please donate here: your contribution is hoped-for, yet not mandatory! Nelly Psarrou*
Download the PDF: Mandatory Vaccination: Law and Bioethics
* Nelly Psarrou is a political scientist. She studied Political Science and International Relations at Panteion University (Athens), and did her master's and doctoral degrees at the London School of Economics. Her doctoral thesis on National Identity in the Era of Globalization was made possible through a Marie Curie Scholarship - TMR. After her studies she taught as a lecturer by contract at the University of Rethymno and the Hellenic Open University until 2008.
Since then,
choosing a more independent path, she has been extensively involved in
political and social research and journalism, writing articles on blogs and
newspapers, making radio shows, and publishing on her personal website. She has
authored three books: National Identity
in the Age of Globalization, Journey
to Samothrace: A Political Diary, and 12
Years in Prison. She has also created two documentaries: Golfland? , for the development of golf
resorts in Greece and tourism), and Stagones (WAteRdrops, on water privatization in Greece (both with English subtitles, Stagones with Spanish subtitles
as well). All of the above can be freely accessed through her personal website: nellypsarrou.com
FOREWORD
“Why are you writing about compulsory vaccination since they declared it voluntary? At most, they will try to force us in other ways”, various friends and acquaintances told me. The reason I am writing on this subject is threefold. Firstly, the statement that they will not impose it is false: they have already passed the relevant laws, they are simply not able to enforce them yet because they do not have all the vaccines. Secondly, it is false that any of our activities can be prevented based on whether or not we have been vaccinated: the market, employers, companies do not have the right to impose unconstitutional measures, without even having a relevant law to cover them. Thirdly, fascism is an issue that awakens my reflexes, because it is a key issue that is constantly creeping into our societies. The issue of compulsory vaccination restores not only Nazi practices that have been repealed by laws after the Nuremberg trials, but also purely fascist coercive mentalities.
In the following text I will analyze the following arguments, as evidenced by the domestic and international legal order:
1. Vaccination, like any medical act, requires the consent of the citizen, consent that must be fully informed.
2. Vaccination of children falls under the same regime from a legal point of view (it is not obligatory) - whereas the consent is given by the guardian. It is explicitly forbidden to restrict access to public services, and therefore to prevent school enrollment to children who are not vaccinated because it violates the constitutional principle of proportionality.
3. Imposing a medical act in any way constitutes a torture. Torture is illegal throughout the entire international legal system. There is no exception to this rule - not even in the event that a person's life may be endangered when on a hunger strike, where compulsory feeding is also considered a form of torture.
4. Non-consensual participation of citizens in medical research and experiments is expressly prohibited. Especially after the NAZI atrocities and mass experiments on people, the Nuremberg Code was adopted (as a result of the Nazis trial in Nuremberg) to addresses these issues. The SarsCov2 vaccines in particular fall into this category: forcing citizens in any way (legal obligation, extortion, fraud) to be massively vaccinated with a vaccine of new and untested technology, the side effects of which are under investigation, turns them into guinea pigs. This is a return to the atrocities of the Nazis and a legitimisation of their crimes under the pretext of public health.
5. No company has the legal capacity to impose restrictions that affect citizens' constitutional rights. Laws and international regulations are clear and apply to everyone. The “free market” argument is deceptive. Especially when this “free market” is financed by the state, as in the case of vaccines and in vaccine injury compensations. Selective research funding constitutes an intervention to the free market in favor of a third party.
6. Pre-selection of drugs that may or may not be used by governments constitutes an obstacle to free research.
7. Healthcare decisions are politically biased by the “conflict of interest” (healthcare decisions made by people involved in the vaccine industry), the creation of a state of universal surveillance and the censorship of “unauthorized” views. The instrumentalisation of the Covid 19 disease serves preconceived political decisions.
In conclusion, government choices in managing the coronavirus are criminal and undermine the efforts to limit the spread of the disease. On the one hand, governments take measures contrary to what scientists suggest. On the other hand, with the above tactics they undermine the trust of the citizens as well as the adoption of measures that are really useful. Finally, these choices are brutally undermining democratic freedoms and human rights. Citizens have the duty to resist fascism and social polarisation, whether or not they wish to be vaccinated.
For your convenience, I have prepared an extended summary of the survey, posted in two links: legal and political arguments. The parts of the original text that are missing, are indicated by brackets. Here follows the first part of this summary:
Mandatory Vaccination part 1: Legal Aguments
Legal Background: human dignity
Every argumentation
on the issue has to be based on a solid foundation: the concept of Human
Dignity. Human dignity, ranking first in all legislature, is set as a
prerequisite for any other rule. The Greek Constitution [mostly influenced by
the UN amendments that followed the WW2 and are thus very similar among
European countries) enacts in article 2 §1: “Respect and protection of human
value constitutes the primary obligation of the State”. Similarly in
important international conventions and declarations (such as the UN, the
Council of Europe, etc.), the concepts of dignity, human rights and freedoms
are put first and establish the framework of reading and interpretation. Basic
among them is Oviedo Convention:
“The Contracting Parties shall protect the dignity and identity of all human
beings and shall guarantee to all, without discrimination, respect of their integrity
and other fundamental rights and freedoms regarding the applications of
biology and medicine” (article 1).
In addition, the priority of the human being amidst medicine and
research development is highlighted in the most absolute way in article 2: “The
interests and welfare of the human-being shall prevail over the sole interest
of society or science”!
1. Mandatory Vaccination, as well as any Medical Act Enforcement,is Forbidden
The above is explicitly enacted in greek legislature with the Code of Medical Conduct (law 3418/2005, article 12 § 1): “Doctors are not allowed to perform any medical act without the prior consent of the patient”. The only exception to this are cases of emergency (immediate danger to life) and suicide (§ 3). Let us clarify here that, by medical act it is meant any act related to health, such as diagnostic and paraclinical examinations, even prescription of medicine (article 1, § 1,2,3). The same is provided by the Oviedo Convention (Article 5), but also by the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, 2005) of UNESCO (UN). The latter emphasizes the autonomy and individual responsibility in decision making (Article 5), but also the very important concern that the consent of the community and / or its leader does not replace individual consent (article 6 §3). In addition, they both state that consent in medical practice can be revoked by the individual at any time and for any reason without this having implications for it (Articles 5 and 6 respectively).
Informed
consent is particularly emphasized in international conventions. Without
being fully informed about each parameter, the consent given is considered
invalid. And here comes another requirement for the consent under article 12
§2: c) “Consent should not be the result
of deception, fraud or threat and should not conflict with moral values”. We
find the same provisions in international treaties, such as for example in the Universal
Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights of UNESCO (articles 18, 19). Indicatively: “Opportunities for informed pluralistic public debate,
seeking the expression of all relevant opinions, should be promoted” (Article 18 §3).
What we are experiencing, by contrast,
is the restriction of information, the systematic promotion of central political
choices (sometimes without a scientific basis), censorship, even prosecution. “Reliable information on the Corona virus” has
been defined as what is issued by the government and its institutions, and
anything else is called fake news.
The same applies for the European Union, which from the outset acted against fake news and established official committees
to monitor conformity. And fake news is defined by the EU as all coverage which does not take
its lead from World Health Organisation (WHO), the national health authorities and
the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.
1.1.b. European Commission’s “Action for dealing with misinformation”
“On 10th June
the European Commission announced significant
actions for dealing with misinformation on COVID-19, instituting
a program for monitoring the activity undertaken by the platforms signing the
code for limiting the spread of disinformation on COVID19”. A considerable portion
of that activity has to do with the promotion
of approved information on the internet by social networking platforms, and the
prevention of non-approved information from obtaining wide circulation. […] There is an assertion, which we encounter in the instructions, of particular interest: “False or misleading information around coronavirus can damage societal cohesion, but above all, it is a threat to public health.. [...] content may not be illegal as defined by law, but still harmful”. In other words, for the Commission there are laws which define the situation in relation to false information and how it should be punished, but there are also harmful actions, views and information which we fight against, but not by legal means, for they are not illegal. So the definition of harm is arbitrary! We should note that these actions are part of measures fighting disinformation initiated by the EU from the end of 2017. [Check on the EU site Reports and Studies about Disinformation.
2. Vaccination of Children and School Enrollment
What has been
said so far applies to children too. As
far as consent is concerned, the legal prerequisite for consent to be valid is
that “the patient is capable of giving consent”. So if the patient is a minor, the consent must be given by those who
exercise parental responsibility or have custody. However, “the opinion of
the minor is also taken into consideration if the minor is of the age and has
the spiritual and emotional maturity to be aware of the state of his health,
the content of the medical act and the consequences or the results or the risks
of this act… ” (article 12 §2.aa). It is obvious that since there can be no compulsory vaccination, it cannot be set as a necessary condition for any activity of the child. Even more so when the “activity” is education: Vaccination cannot be imposed as a condition for fulfilling any public obligation (for example: military service or educational obligations for children). So mandatory vaccination for children as a condition for school enrolment is not acceptable.
3) Mandatory Medical Acts, by any way, Constitute Torture
Torture is considered illegal throughout the international legal system. There is absolutely no exception to this rule, neither exception on any case of medical act. Physical or mental coercion is not accepted by the international law for no reason, not even in the case that will save a person's life if that person does not consent! It is indicative that, enforcement of feeding hunger strikers, even after many days of a strike where the life of the individual is in danger, it is still consisted as torture against their personal dignity and their right of self-disposition.
4. SarsCov2
Vaccine and Violation of the Nuremberg Code
Any diagnostic or therapeutic method, which is not applied by the international scientific community, is characterized as experimental and its application is allowed only in accordance with the legal and ethical framework governing the conduct of scientific research (article 3 §4, Code of Medical Ethics) The analysis above concerns vaccination in general, without reference to a specific vaccine or disease. And now let us refer specifically to the possibility of mandatory vaccination for Covid 19. What is special about this vaccine is that it is new, untested to the general population, and that its urgent approval procedures leave us with potential security gaps. In addition, some of these vaccines use the new mRNA technology, not applied to vaccines before. As a result we cannot forecast any probable side effects and properly evaluate if they are tolerable or not. Many aspects of this technology –mainly applied in the treatment of cancer- were still under investigation, until the “emergency status” was declared. In this sense, whoever agrees to be vaccinated will in fact participate in an experiment based on a largely inapplicable technology for the new virus. And here comes the most important objection regarding the coronavirus vaccine.
Non-consensual participation of
citizens in medical research and experiments is explicitly prohibited.
The SarsCov2 vaccine specifically falls into this category: coercion of
citizens in any way (legal
obligation, extortion, fraud, psychological pressure etc) to be vaccinated en
masse with a vaccine based on a new technology, untested in humans, the side
effects of which are still under investigation, makes them experimental animals and signifies a return to the atrocities of the Nazis and the legitimisation of
their crimes under the pretext of public health. After the end of World War
II the Nazis were trialed for the crimes which were committed by the 3rd Reich
and its collaborators. Due to Nazi’s atrocities and mass experiments on humans,
the Nuremberg
Code (1947) was enacted as a result of the famous
Nuremberg trials. Among them was the Doctors'
Trial, in which doctors who participated in experiments on humans were
trialed, including the cases of forced sterilisation of about 3.5 million
Germans. […] from the rise of Hitler onwards, the use of humans as guinea pigs up
to their death by IGFarben (chemical-pharmaceutical consortium of Agfa, Bayer, Basf, Hoechst / Aventis /
Novartis) took a creepy turn (regarding the promotion of Hitler by IGFarben
see here).
[The owners of these companies had never been tried. Only some executives
received ridiculous sentences - but we will not raise this issue now]. The Nuremberg Code stated, among others, that: 1. Voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential; 2. the experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment (see more here and here). The Code itself has never been legally binding, but its principles have been reflected in a number of international regulations and conventions, such as the Oviedo Convention, which is the main binding reference text. […]
4.1. SarsCov2 vaccine and conditional / emergency licensing
… Let's take
the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine as an example. Licenses for this vaccine in the EU
and the U.S. are CMA and EUA respectively (Conditional Marketing Authorisation
and Emergency Use Authorisation).
This is clearly stated on Pfizer’s website, with reference also
to the emergency licensing newsletter,
which means that the vaccine “has not
been approved by the relevant regulatory authority, it is an
investigational drug, and its safety and efficacy have not been
established”. In addition, on FDA’s website we see that “the Commissioner
may authorize the emergency use of an unapproved product or an unapproved use
of an approved product, provided that other statutory criteria are met” (FDA guidance
document , A'1).
[…] On December 11 the EU gave conditional marketing authorisation, “on the basis of less comprehensive data than normally required. …”. The details of EU license are similar here to the US. Most importantly, it is not yet known how many vaccinated people may still be able to carry and spread the virus, as well as the duration of its action, as officially informed by ΕΜΑ. “Serious and unexpected side effects may occur, … the vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials”, and “they may become apparent with more widespread use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” (see here and here). Also, interaction with other drugs or vaccines has not been investigated.
The “urgency” of the matter has led to such an acceleration of standard procedures that raises serious safety issues. Because, yes, vaccines with mRNA technology have the potential for faster and mass production, but when the normal process takes 4-10 years and today we are in about 10 months at most, obviously some procedures that were defined as necessary in order to approve a vaccine have not been observed. First and foremost, the very requirement of the Nuremberg Code has been violated (no.3: The experiment should be designed and based on the results of animal experiments and knowledge of the natural history of the disease) in conjunction with the Oviedo Treaty (no.16: there should be no alternative to human study). In the New York Times, for example, we read that due to haste important tests have been bypassed, such as the vaccine test in animals, and months' decisions were made within a few days - the newspaper reports it not as a security deficit but as a modern scientific achievement! The research planned for the vaccine is estimated by the company to be completed in 2023 (phase three). In our example of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, human trials began in July 2020 (!), and the first results were announced by the consortium in September). Take a look at the timeline: the decision to develop the coronavirus vaccine was made in January by BioNTech, in March it expanded its pre-existing partnership with Pfizer to co-produce the vaccine, on July 1 they announced the first phase of testing to 45 volunteers, and on July 24 the large volunteer program with 45,000 people started.
4.1.a. A vaccine that ... is not a vaccine!
In order for a vaccine to be defined as such it must have certain criteria: 1) to prevent disease without serious side effects, 2) the protection that it provides to be permanent and not weaken soon after, and 3) to be able to prevent the transmission of the disease. Unfortunately, none of these three conditions currently apply to the candidate vaccines, with the exception of the first, which applies only partially. The only expectation at this stage from vaccines against Covid 19 is that they will help prevent the onset of (serious) clinical symptoms of the vaccinated person. It certainly does not prevent the transmission of the virus to the vaccinated persons or to others around them, nor does it protect the most vulnerable, which is one of the dominant ethical proponents of vaccine propaganda. I consciously use the term propaganda because the briefing should explicitly state that they do not protect against transmission. But then, the main means of exerting psychological pressure in favor of vaccination with this not normally approved vaccine would be missing. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a White House spokesman for the coronavirus, acknowledged this in late October, saying: “What I would settle for, and all of my colleagues would settle for, is the primary endpoint to prevent clinically recognizable disease” - adding the phrase «and that's what we hope happens»! 
In simple words, that is, the ... vaccine is not even an established vaccine: we don’t not know for how long does it offer
immunity (it is also mentioned above, in the licensing of ΕΜΑ),
but we do know that it does not prevent transmission of the virus! Vulnerable
groups are thus exposed from many aspects as, on the
one hand they will consider themselves safe next to vaccinated people, on the
other hand if they do the vaccine they will consider themselves safe! At the
end of the day, they shall move in unknown waters, since the volunteers were chosen
from healthy people (only a few volunteers belonging in vulnerable groups
agreed to do receive the vaccine). […]
4.1.c. The primary issue of human genome security
The genetic material of every organism is the very code of life, which consists of DNA and RNA. Human life is recorded in this code, which defines our biological evolution as a species but also individually. Scientists are therefore asking for more studies and guarantees before the vaccine is given to the population (e.g. Ioannidis, 35') to avoid the possibility of causing any damage, as Medical Conduct stipulates. Could this be done?
The legal aspect: Our legal tradition guarantees the protection of human genome. The Oviedo Convention, in Article 13, states that interventions in the human genome can only be performed for therapeutic, diagnostic or preventive reasons as long as they do not alter the genome of the offspring. The Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights (UNESCO) also speaks of the protection of future generations and their genetic makeup from the effects of science (article 16).
The rationale behind international protection is manifested in a more specialized UNESCO text, the Universal Declaration of Human Genome and Human Rights, which states in its first article that “the human genome underlines the fundamental unity of all human beings of the human family, as well as the recognition of their inherent dignity and diversity. In a symbolic sense, it is the heritage of humanity”. The proclamation continues by stating something very important, that “everyone has the right to respect for their dignity and rights regardless of their genetic characteristics. This dignity makes it imperative not to limit individuals to their genetic characteristics and to respect their uniqueness and diversity” (article 2a, b)! With regard to our subject in particular, it is restated that any “research, treatment or diagnosis affecting an individual's genome shall be undertaken only after rigorous and prior assessment of the potential risks and benefits, pertaining thereto and in accordance with any other requirement of national law”, and always under the free consent of the fully informed person (Article 5 §a, b). Finally, “No research or research applications concerning the human genome, in particular in the fields of biology, genetics and medicine, should prevail over respect for the human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity of individuals or, where applicable, of groups of people” (article 10).
These
texts clearly reflect existing concern regarding
interventions of science on humankind and our future. These are
declarations that have dealt precisely with the issue we face today, namely the
limits and security of science against not only human dignity but also the
future of humanity. […]
The medical aspect: As
we saw earlier, the criteria based on
which scientists and citizens determine what a vaccine is and what it does, are
specific. But, in the current stage
of trials, these criteria are not
fulfilled. Since these products are promoted mainly as ways for protecting people
after they get infected with the virus from not presenting any symptoms or from
falling heavily sick, then they mainly fall under the category of “medicines” - at least until their “vaccinal”
effects are proven, meaning the prevention of spreading the disease. They
mainly work as medicines, although they are given as preventive measures to
healthy individuals without being sick! Thus, their promotion is rather misleading. It becomes obvious that the prerequisites for urgent provision of the vaccine to the population, even voluntarily and under their consent, do not exist. Nevertheless, this has already started happening and it is promoted as the only available solution within the context of intimidation and unprecedented blackmailing. John Ioannidis (Stanford University’s professor and one of the leading experts on epidemiology) has rightfully pointed out since the beginning of the pandemic that: “Media are constantly broadcasting deaths, creating a false sense of reality, a horror show that does not help citizens comply, but instead they exacerbates stress, and that is something we do not want. We want people to remain cool-headed. Imagine doing this for every death...” (min. 29:10). […] Still, the government tries with publicity-stunts to convince us that they are acting according to scientific guidelines on the matter. Is that the case? Is the government acting based on scientific evidence?
4.2. Constructing Emergency Climate
Dimitris
Kouvelas, professor of Clinical Pharmacology at the Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, tells us that, in Greece, “We’ ve created a sense that we are
being pressured because the world is coming crushing down on our heads, that
is, funds have been invested to convince
people of the danger of Covid. [Whenever one turns on the TV, any time] 90%
of the information is about Covid, a virus with mortality rate 0.15%, ... and the average age of those who die of it is
80 years, while the average age of general mortality is 81 years. Essentially
there are no other deaths: those who die are those who were expected to die”
(16:30-17:24). “But, what is he talking about”, one may wonder reasonably,
given the news and images with scores of dead people in bags, overcrowded ICUs
and daily death tolls. However, if we were looking at real evidence, we would
stumble upon a rather different reality. In
simple words, for this frightening presentation of reality and the subsequent
pressure on citizens, so that they would look forward to any solution, there have been three factors: exaggeration of the
real risk (through the mass media), taking on extreme measures not
proportionate to the problem and contrary to the recommendations of scientists,
as well as psychological pressure exerted on the population. […]
i)
Fatality The case fatality rate of SarsCov2 is estimated at an average of about 0.15% (a rate that goes up to 0.23% in countries that have been hit hardest, and goes down in countries that have dealt with the coronavirus very effectively (Ioannidis, 1:52:12'') These rates change, of course, as tests are being performed on the population, since the numerator in fatality calculation fraction consists of number of deaths, and the denominator consists of number of cases (actually, to those who have developed antibodies). The US CDC suggests an average of 0.65%. The rates also vary greatly depending on age. Thus, in the CDC data mentioned above, for example, there is a scale that starts at 0.003 for those under 19 (zero in Greece), 0.02 for those between 20-49, 0.5 for those between 50-69, and 5.4 for those of age 69 and above. These data mean that we have a great potential of intervening and reducing the percentage by protecting the age groups of people who run the higher risk. Thus, the overall case fatality rate from the virus can be potentially reduced. Furthermore, these rates vary considerably depending on whether individuals have underlying diseases. We know that healthy people, even of old age, manifest very low fatality rates, while vulnerable people manifest higher fatality rates, even if they are younger.
In another example, the mortality rate (deaths per total population) particularly in nursing homes reaches 25%, because these are closed units with high concentration of elderly people who usually have diseases, as reported by Professor Ioannidis. Respectively, as I have been informed by the cardiologist and researcher at the School of Public Health of the University of West Attica and the University of Patras, Konstantinos Farsalinos, the outbursts in Belgium and New York were caused exactly by the fact that no attention at all was paid at the nursing homes: in New York, the elderly people who were ill were sent back to the nursing homes, where they transmitted the coronavirus, and in Belgium for similar reasons we saw 65% of the country's total deaths in nursing homes, where only 1% of the population lived! In Sweden (which has not implemented any of the known measures), a country of about the same population as Greece, the death toll in 2020 is almost double (approximately 8,700) compared to the one in Greece (who took the hardest measures), and the greatest catastrophe took place in nursing homes, not only for the usual reasons, but also because the people working there were paid by the hour, going from one nursing home to another – and carrying the virus with them. In Greece, fortunately, the population that lives in nursing homes is much smaller.
Such data indicate that this is not a pandemic, as has often been pointed out, but a syndemic (Gerotziafas, 1:00:30''), i.e. an epidemic that affects those who have underlying diseases, are obese, have or have been through cancer, are immunosuppressed etc., especially if they are over 65-70 years old. A syndemic also means that the most socially vulnerable, that is the poorest, those who work in more stressful environments, etc., are at major risk. In other words, brave interventions in the health system and targeted interventions in specific parts of the population would have the potential of greatly improving the overall picture of the disease. […] What needs to be done, says Mr. Ioannidis, is strict care for about 10% of the population, which finds itself most at risk, and then things will definitely be much more optimistic.
The above fatality rates refer to the total estimated deaths worldwide (approximately 1.5 million). However, we do not know how many of these people died of coronavirus or with coronavirus because deaths registration in Greece, and everywhere, is made by registering all deaths as been caused by coronavirus if the coronavirus test was positive, regardless of the cause of death (Ioannidis, 1-10'). In fact, the tests themselves are performed by analysis in an unjustifiably high number of "cycles" (as they say in the laboratories), resulting in increased positive results. Thus, deaths from coronavirus are recorded, even when they refer to asymptomatic people who did not even actually get sick.
Also, many deaths in the beginning came from ‘bad’ medical practices: that is, doctors used techniques or drugs in order to help, but ended up having the opposite effect. The recommendation to not perform necropsies unless there was a good reason did not help to pinpoint the exact cause of death and draw the right conclusions, as it was a new disease and necropsies might have helped to understand it. After this directive was circumvented by doctors in Germany and Italy, it became clear that during intubation, for example, they should not have been giving too much air to patients, because this made them worse.
ii) Funerals
An
intense communication show was set up
around funerals of the deceased. For unknown reasons, the dead are buried following Ebola protocol, which dictates placing of
the corpse in plastic bags, sealing of coffins and use of protective clothing,
and not according to Covid 19 protocol, which does not mention any special
measures and, in fact, allows the care of the deceased by their families (check
for instance the protocol of CDC). The researcher Konstantinos Farsalinos (1:30:40-1:50:00) who raised the
issue talks about an unacceptable
communication game to the detriment of the mental health of people, who do
not have the opportunity to say goodbye to their beloved and bury them
according to their customs, for no
reason at all.
[…]
Also
interesting is the information given
from Mr. Leon (at 2'), that no autopsies are performed on the deceased from
Covid 19 because there already exists a definite cause of death: In several
countries (not in Greece) the cause of
death is determined by some algorithm! Read the News:
“This is the Iris software, an automatic
system for coding multiple causes of death and for selecting the underlying
(final) cause of death, … Iris is based on the international death certificate
form provided by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and causes of death are
coded according to the ICD-10 rules. So, the cause of death is not
determined by the doctor. The system “is used for standardized and comparable
registration of diseases and death records”.
4.2.b. Science Deniers: In addition to exaggerating the risk, a number of measures have been introduced that exert suffocating pressure on citizens so as to render them eager to get out of this situation by any means available – while at the same time other necessary measures were ignored. This is an obvious denial of scientific data by those in charge, which, combined with the one-dimensional presentation of the situation by the mass media, left a vast majority of citizens in ignorance.
i) Enhancement of Primary Care: proposed by scientists, not implemented
by the government […]
iii) Masks in open spaces imposed for “symbolic” reasons! […]
iv) [Lack of] Epidemiological Surveillance and testing […]
v) Scientists and committee members do not have free access to the data
[…]
vi) Dominance of the vaccine, ignoring the drug […]
[For the parts i-vi you can check on the PDF of this survey]
At the end of this section, I would like
to set forth that all the aforementioned doctors are in favour of vaccines.
Also, my frequent reference to Professor Ioannis
Ioannidis is due simply to his work international prestige and
recognition, as evidenced by the fact that he is one of the most frequently cited
scientists in all international literature. This scientist was blocked on Youtube (it put down an interview)
because “it was violating the terms of
the “community” for putting across misinformation about Covid 19”. This
statement can also be found on Wikipedia
(in a highlighted box). From all the above, I believe it is clear who the deniers of science are. Even the most ignorant put in the government would hire doctors and regiment an epidemiological study, instead of giving more than €40 million to the media to spread panic.
4.2.c. Psychological Blackmail on Citizens
As we
continue to examine the issue of science
denial and the construction of urgency, we should stress again that freely
given consent is crucial to research or medical experiment. In the case of the
coronavirus vaccine, however, enormous pressure has been exerted and, in
particular, psychological blackmail of
citizens on the basis that “it is
immoral and irresponsible not to protect your fellow”. Much has been
invested in this point of view, albeit a false one, since the vaccine does not
protect against transmission. However, this false
opinion was not developed in a great abundance of people through ... free
association (suddenly everyone used the same argument!), but through scientific
planning and methodical propaganda. Yale
University,
USA, conducted a research as early as of July 2020: this study tests different
messages about vaccination against COVID-19 once the vaccine becomes available,
and their possible influence on the reported willingness to get a COVID-19
vaccine! The messages examined in relation to their effectiveness in convincing
people to be vaccinated, were the following: 1. Personal and economic freedom message (about how COVID-19 is
limiting people’s personal freedom and, by working together to get enough
people vaccinated, society can preserve its personal freedom), 2. Community’s interest message (about
the dangers of COVID-19 to the health of loved ones), 3. Guilt, embarrassment, anger message (it asks the participant to
imagine the guilt, embarrassment or anger they will feel if they do not get
vaccinated and spread the disease), 4.
Trust in science message (if one does not get vaccinated it means that one
does not understand how infections are spread or who ignores science), 5. Not bravery message (it describes
how fire-fighters, doctors, and front-line medical workers are brave. Those who
choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave). I repeat, the
research was studying which message will be most effective in convincing
participants to get vaccinated or to persuade others to do so. The results were
not published, but we can safely infer from every-day propaganda that they have
been implemented. […]
The real important findings of this research, edited by the professor of Psychiatry at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinos Foundoulakis, concern the March-May lockdown effects on human psyche. In brief: clinical depression cases rose to 9,31%, with a significant record of anxiety 23%, those who had previously experienced depression relapsed, while 8,96% experienced depression for the first time; increased anxiety symptoms occurred in more than 45%, while suicidal thoughts had an increase to 10,40% . These findings do not concern those over 65, since the research was done online. The investigation will continue for the second lockdown too.
The results of this academic study, combined with the huge and unexpected financial burden on households and people who do not work or have seen their incomes severely decrease without adequate relief from their financial obligations, school closures, social isolation and many other constraints, compose a reference framework that seems to be deteriorating. Finally, if, in a sense, measures could be justified by the most conscientious in the context of “defending public health”, we should perhaps consider what is health. World Health Organisation defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 25 states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”. These internationally accepted definitions of health redraft the question we are already considering: what view on health imposes the lockdown of all healthy people of a country (or a planet in this case) and their lives degradation at all levels, instead of taking measures to protect vulnerable groups and quarantine the sick? After all, quarantine means “a period of forced isolation [of people, animals or plants ailing] from the rest of society, in order to prevent transmission of a contagious disease, ... the duration of which normally equals the longest known incubation period of the disease”. Who decided to change the internationally applying definitions and practices?
4.3. The Ghost of Fear and Stigmatisation of Others
[…] What one may not immediately realize is that, intended imposition of vaccination on Covid 19 is not just an illegal practice but, in addition, ‘embodies’ in our societies the ghost of fascism that had emerged about 80 years ago. Danger to human beings and society from this is obvious, especially knowing how much stronger the pharmaceutical and chemical industries have become today compared to when the same industry funded the National Socialist Party of Germany and put Hitler in power together with uncontrolled experiments in humans in order to serve the eugenic ideology expressed through the Aryan race. It is not a vaccine or a disease that is at stake. The threat lies in the legitimacy in our societies of practices that have been strongly condemned and which, in interwar Germany, marked the beginning of an ever-worsening horror and nullification of human value. The Germans did not wake up one morning and said, “let‘s exterminate millions of Others”; this is the result of a series of measures, which were first tolerated, and then went out of control. The imposition of compulsory vaccination on the entire global population on the occasion of Covid 19 opens the bags of Aeolus for the violation of every guaranteed human right and value. This would be a justification for Nazism 80 years later.
[…] On the occasion of Covid 19, those people should move beyond current propaganda that censors any view opposed to the government's choices and to see what defines fascism, what feeds it, what it has done historically and who has supported it. If we look at what is happening today in this light, we will easily understand what is actually at stake. Any ‘discount’ on guaranteed human rights due to a virus will set a very dangerous precedent without, perhaps, a quick return. The enforcement that is being attempted today is mainly based on consensus, which includes verbal humiliation of anyone who disagrees with the government through derogatory descriptions uttered by the citizens themselves (conspiracy theorists, fascists, sub-humans etc.). For that reason it is deemed necessary to break the monopoly of guided propaganda and to dismantle the heavy cloud of fear that has overshadowed everything – as is the case with any fascist attack.
Professor
Dimitris Kouvelas speaks clearly against the obligation of vaccination on
December 25, in an interview at the newspaper Kyriakatiki Kontra.
for the most
part other significant problems of social and political nature are at stake. For
example, views in favor of obligation and "discrimination" against
those who choice to refuse vaccination. Medical and civilized action is the
consent of the citizens to every medical act that takes place in ones’ body.
If, on the other hand, citizens are "forced" to distinguish
themselves between "vaccinated", therefore healthy and safe, and
others who will be referred to as "sick" or dangerous to the public
health, then the bag of Aeolus opens for dangerous and anti-social behaviors. If
the unvaccinated will not have rights to work or care so that some people feel
safe, then patients with any infection could be "marked" (HIV, hepatitis, tuberculosis, venereal etc),
so as to not mislead and infect someone, and maybe some will flirt
with the idea of labeling “every dangerous individuals’, such as
homosexuals, Roma, schizophrenics, addicts, etc. Of course, with this “logic”,
smokers and carriers of HIV and hepatitis should not be treated since they have
not taken the necessary precautionary measures, as some of the nation's health
authorities have decided. The very reference of the Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis to “cov-idiots” and “underworld of the internet” did not shake the opponents of fascism in our country as much as it should - so widespread that this insult and rivalry is now in our society. The violation of the Constitution and all its provisions regarding respect for the personality of every human being at such a high institutional level was not perceived. And yet, classifying fellow human beings in a subordinate category by reducing their value should make some rebels with similar references to “cockroaches” and “mice” shudder. Because devaluating Others in a category inferior to regular people, or even inferior to the human in general, is a regular tactic of any fascist regime, as the tragic history of humans has shown. When the degrading tactics of the government are happily embraced by the people, then yes, we are clearly slipping into fascism. Perhaps again with this public statement he gave a stigma to the willing in order to slander freely and with political cover: a few days after in.gr website published an article with the term "sprayed" in the title, and the phrase "dumb and stupid" in the text. Thus, the government's investment in the media pays off!
5. No company has the legal authority to impose restrictions that affect citizens’ constitutional rights.
Laws and international regulations are clear and apply to everyone. The “free market” argument is a pretense. Much more so when “free market” is funded by the state, as in the case of vaccines, including compensations for side effects. Selective research funding is a free market intervention in favor of a third party.
And those who will not be vaccinated voluntarily - because as I said vaccination will not be mandatory - should be aware that they may want to travel and they may not. It is so simple. I am not going to chase with the vaccine people on the street who do not want to be vaccinated, but they should know that they are taking responsibility for themselves. And it may not be us but the market itself, the free economy, that imposes such restrictions that make their lives a little more difficult. 
The above was said in an interview by the greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis on the radio station Status Press on November 28 (recording and video). […] However, let us have no doubt about the intentions of the government. Intentions that, after all, are not its own initiative: relevant statements have been made by government officials in other countries simultaneously. In Britain, for example, at the same time (end of November) ministers were declaring that there might be an “immunity passport” for free access everywhere and that technology would facilitate this. Shortly afterwards, another minister said they were not considering such a thing. This seems to be a rather studied technique for creating confusion among the citizens than conjunctural contradictory statements of ministers in different countries at the same period of time. In Spain, however, the director of the Center for Emergency Health Alerts, Fernando Simon, said that “we hope it does not have to be mandatory”, and the Minister of Health in Italy, Roberto Speranza, that “we hope to achieve herd immunity without obligation, but immunity must be achieved” (see here). Even in Australia, which generally has a stricter stance on vaccination, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said vaccination “should be mandatory, as long as it can be done!”. […] If the above measures sound extreme, it is because we are neither learning about them, nor about the countries that already take such measures - and this is already a very serious lack of democracy and transparency. There is not adequate information even about our own country! In Greece, a Ministerial Decision of 26/9/2020 (No. Δ1α/Γ.Π.οικ. 59624) calls for the “temporary restriction for fourteen (14) days of confirmed positive cases COVID-19 following in such categories as: a) persons deprived of permanent residence in the Greek territory, b) persons residing in accommodation structures and c) persons belonging to large families and cannot be isolated, who are asymptomatic and do not need admission or further hospitalisation, as precautionary protection of public health from the further spread of the coronavirus COVID-19 in the Greek Territory”. Simply put, according to (c), the police will have the legal authority to forcibly take someone who is positive and isolate them away from his family to protect it! This is a direct isolation of family asylum (article 9 of the Greek Constitution) for the protection of the family itself. Doctor and researcher Konstantinos Farsalinos characterizes it as “a measure that flattens human value, dignity and privacy, and brutally violates fundamental rights ...”. In December 17, Deputy Minister of Civil Protection Nikos Hardalias announced “tough measures” for Western Attica, including the “isolation of confirmed cases that do not require hospitalisation, in areas and structures that have already been secured for this purpose by the General Secretary of Civil Protection and especially in cases where household isolation is not feasible and poses risks to other family members”. The state's concern for the citizen’s well-being now takes it to another level - overcoming its constitutional obligation and limiting public health at the same time. Isn’t this forcible isolation, insofar as it is proposed for health reasons in a positive patient, a medical act? So, isn’t consent required, as is required for any medical procedure?
To sum up: the Greek government, in unprecedented total harmony with the entire opposition, is ready from a legislative point of view to impose what the Constitution prohibits. For the moment it does not proceed since it is not practically ready to apply it: the vaccines that will come to Greece will be in batches, and will not reach everyone anyway - as is logical. After all, it is easier and ‘smarter’ to divide the world by population category (health workers, elderly, etc.) and thus to divert attention. Division has always been the method used for enforcement.
5.2. The Limits of the Free Market are set by the Constitution and the Laws
The second lie coming out of Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ mouth is that they will not impose the vaccination but the free market will! Here things are easier to document. People, their associations, private initiative, companies, everything within a territory is regulated by the Constitution (primarily) and its laws, and is supervised by the competent public authorities. Nobody does whatever they want, at least on a theoretical and legal level. That is, if an airline says tomorrow morning, “I will not put blacks or Jews or homosexuals or women on my flights”, can you imagine what will happen? Wouldn’t the general prosecutor intervene immediately to prosecute the company for violating the multiple laws on equality, non-discrimination based on gender, race, religion, etc.? And wouldn’t everyone talk and write about the constitutional and international provisions on human dignity that are being violated? I do not think we need to list here all the relevant laws and regulations to convince anyone: constitutional rights cannot be violated by a simple statement. Let me just mention the UNESCO Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, which stipulates in Article 11 that no one may be discriminated against or stigmatized for any reason in respect of their dignity, rights and freedoms (Non-discrimination and non-stigmatisation).
In simple words, when Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the country's Prime Minister and a member of the parliament for years (hence he knows the laws) says that, “well, if the company wants to do it, what should I do?”, he is essentially fooling us, he is exercising psychological blackmail and invites other companies to participate. Similar statements have been made by politicians internationally. […] In case of implementation of such a decision, for example if a company denies access to someone due to non-vaccination and the authorities do not intervene ex officio, then the offended citizen may receive a very large compensation by suing the company. The same applies to employers: they cannot demand from employees measures that are unconstitutional and are no even enacted by law.
The reason why large companies, and especially multinationals, eagerly desire and work towards the so-called Private-Public Partnership (PPP) is precisely this: they need states to institutionalize and impose on the population what they themselves do not have the authority to do. The other reason are subsidies: although in a free market the state is not allowed to subsidize a private company, in many cases, and especially in the case of the coronavirus, companies have been funded by the states in the most formal way - by states and international philanthropists to be precise. In short, PPP is the epitome of conflict of interest.
5.3. The Subsidized Market is not a Free Market
And here we come to the third
part that we mentioned above of the Prime Minister's statements, that is, that
the free market exists and works regarding Covid 19. In order to produce
coronavirus vaccines, money was given by the states and their coalitions -
approximately $ 10-18 billion from the US and €
15.9 billion from a EU
initiative addressed to the world (list of
countries/amounts). This reduced the risk of the industry
and enabled some of the timetables to be compressed. States also pledged to buy
it, and the companies pledged on how many pieces they would keep for each
country. The price of the final product has not been agreed (!), nor have
the companies been bound to share their know-how. So, the cost is public,
the profit is
private!
And what about
the legally guaranteed right of citizens to compensation for
side-effects from the product? This has been undertaken by countries: companies
have full immunity to any side-effects from the vaccines. A question on
compensations was submitted to the European Parliament, and the official
answer was: “The Commission has ensured that the agreement with
AstraZeneca is fully in line with EU law and in particular that it fully
respects and protects the rights of citizens, in accordance with the directive
on liability of defective products. According to the directive, the
responsibility lies with the manufacturer. However,
in order to offset the potential risks posed by manufacturers due to the
unusually shorter timeframe for vaccine development, the agreement provides
that Member States shall reimburse the manufacturer for any liabilities
arising, only under certain conditions set out in the agreement”. Let
us see some details about the specific conditions ... Oops! Unfortunately, we
cannot: “the issue of
confidentiality is raised”! Indeed, this
is the answer given to the Greek Communist Party’s parliamentary
group when it requested the disclosure of contracts with
pharmaceutical companies: “The request for disclosure of contracts requires
the consent of the companies…”! […]
Read Part 2 of this extended summary: Mandatory Vaccination part 2: the Political Aspect The full text can be downloaded here: Mandatory Vaccination: Law and Bioethics
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.25
3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved." |
||||||
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons LicenceWebSite created by UndoCreations