January 12, 2022
I Told You the Official Document Has Appeared That Blows Up the Vaccination Case
It is a document drawn up by the Ministry of Health in answer to the first 10 questions I put about a month ago under Law 544/2001.
It is the first approximately explicit briefing (though incomplete and contradictory) in the past year, since vaccination became compulsory de facto! The document is perhaps more interesting for what it presupposes, or for how it does not say, than for what it says and does not say. Probably, however, the most important observation we shall be able to make is the one concerning the superficiality and incompetence of the officials of the Ministry of Health who drew up this document — and I sincerely regret having to note this fact.
Since the first analysis of the answer runs to 8 pages, I shall begin to set out for you, as briefly as I can, the conclusions I have managed to summarise, and shall ask the more patient among you to read in full the pdf document you will find in the link below.
Here is the summary of the conclusions and observations made upon the official document, a summary in which I shall no longer mention the questions to which the Ministry of Health made greater efforts to avoid answers than to bring any clarification to the legitimate problems raised:
1. What are the updated contraindications of each available vaccine, taking into account their leaflets and the adverse effects recorded worldwide to this date?
For the first time, the Ministry says expressly that there are some persons who MUST NOT be vaccinated with certain vaccines! — which has not been said until now!!!
Worth noting are the recurring warnings in the document, according to which: “Vaccination must be postponed in the case of persons presenting an acute febrile condition or an acute infection”!!!
In spite of the above, the Ministry further informs us that “at the vaccination centre a Form of expression of informed consent is filled in, whereby the patient consents in an informed manner to the medical act”, although even at this date the Ministry of Health has not been able or has not wished to inform the public correctly and completely about the requested information, which the public ought to have had at its disposal for more than a year.
Probably, however, the most important piece of information is the one according to which “VACCINATION AGAINST COVID-19 IN ROMANIA IS VOLUNTARY”! — a fact which must be an axiom, to be understood and accepted by everyone!
2. What analyses must I have done before vaccination, according to each particular vaccine and to its specific contraindications?
Essential in this answer is the clear and explicit initial instruction according to which “Before vaccination one must ALWAYS discuss the matter with the attending physician or with the family doctor.” — in other words the Ministry tells us clearly that vaccination cannot be carried out without a prior medical consultation. Not for pastries. Not for a raffle… Not for vouchers!
After which comes the last and most astounding contraindication: “you are a close contact of someone who has covid-19”…
But how are you to find out whether you have been a close contact of someone who has CoVid-19… if you are not tested? For in the following paragraph we are told that “It is not necessary to take tests for CoVid-19 before vaccination”… Obviously, given the contagiousness of the virus, it is impossible to know whether or not you have been “a close contact of someone who has CoVid19” without prior testing, which makes the Ministry’s answer not only illogical but plainly apt to mislead the citizen.
All the more is the answer incomplete and contradictory to the answer given by the same institution to the first question, so long as you cannot know whether you have a “hypersensitivity to the active substance or to any of the product’s excipients”, or whether you are liable to have “episodes of capillary leak” or “episodes of capillary extravasation syndrome”.
For all these reasons it is evident that the mere consultation of the family doctor cannot suffice for vaccination, all the more so as the ministry has been incapable of drawing up a list of possible adverse reactions and contraindications for each vaccine.
Not least, the Ministry, in denying by its answer the need for any analyses, expressly contradicts the substance of the Ministry’s answer to question 6, where it states confusedly and contradictorily that “The benefits of vaccination clearly outweigh the risk of developing a severe form of COVID19, taking into account the fact that more than 30% of the population suffers from allergic conditions… for reasons of safety, when administering the mRNA CoVid-19 there must always be rapidly available treatment for anaphylaxis, including adrenaline”…
3. According to the undersigned’s particular medical problems and to the results of the analyses carried out following the instructions given by your answer to the question above, what speciality must the doctor have who will recommend to me the vaccine that could offer me the maximum of protection and the minimum of risk of side effects?
To this question the Ministry returns with the “instruction” formulated earlier, namely that it is necessary “to obtain the recommendation of the attending physician or of the family doctor”, without answering further in the light of the information previously supplied.
4. What is the degree of authorisation by the Ministry of Health of each existing vaccine, and on what basis was that authorisation granted?
The vaccines have NO national authorisation.
The vaccines were imposed upon us by the EU on the basis of Directive 2001/83/EC!
The Ministry tells us implicitly 2 things:
the Ministry has authorised no vaccine, this authorisation coming directly from Brussels;
as regards the vaccines “on the market”, since they have only a conditional authorisation and not a marketing authorisation, from the point of view of the Ministry and of the law it has not been proved that they have benefits greater than the associated risks, nor that patients can have access to the treatments they need without being exposed to unacceptable adverse reactions.
5. Which doctor is to follow the undersigned’s medical course after vaccination, and for what period?
To this question the Ministry evades an answer, partly repeating the answer to 3: “after vaccination one must wait 15 minutes. During this period your state of health is monitored… for possible late adverse effects, possibly the local ones, the patient must get in touch with the attending physician.”
6. Is there a set of medical procedures / treatment schemes established for each type of adverse side effect, according to each vaccine on the market?
The Ministry’s answer to this question begins, as I showed above, with a logical nonsense: “The benefits of vaccination clearly outweigh the risk of developing a severe form of COVID19, taking into account the fact that more than 30% of the population suffers from allergic conditions…”
Then, without answering our specific and precise question, the Ministry tells us only that “for reasons of safety, when administering the mRNA CoVid-19 there must always be rapidly available treatment for anaphylaxis, including adrenaline”, having in view ONLY the immediate post-vaccination adverse effects, within the 15 or 30 minutes immediately following the injection.
The Ministry says nothing, however, about the existence of treatments for what it called in Answer 3 “late adverse reactions”.
7. Who assumes the civil (respectively the criminal) liability for a possible malpractice, that is, for the adverse effects occurring after injection with a vaccine as a consequence of an erroneous recommendation to administer a vaccine in disregard of the undersigned’s medical problems?
The Ministry’s answer to this question is more revealing for what it does not say than for what it says: the Ministry speaks of “the strict monitoring of the safety of the vaccines (which) will be carried out through specific pharmacovigilance activities”, of the EMA, of the “regime of additional monitoring”, again of the “conditional approval” or of “additional studies”…
Yet the Ministry says nothing about civil or criminal liability for the doctor’s malpractice, for the adverse effects occurring after injection with a vaccine as a consequence of an erroneous recommendation to administer a vaccine in disregard of the undersigned’s medical problems.
A silence which, were I a doctor, would send cold shivers down my spine… and would oblige me to be ten times more careful to whom I propose the injection… for it is evident that the avoidance of a clear-cut answer to this problem is caused by the absence of a legal framework exonerating doctors from the consequences of the probable adverse effects of vaccination.
8. Given that most of the vaccines have, at international level, either a provisional authorisation or are in clinical trials according to the manufacturers’ official statements (for example the final report of the clinical study for the randomised, placebo-controlled, observer-blind study C4591001 for Comirnaty must be submitted by December 2023 according to the Comirnaty Pfizer leaflet — page 67 of the document at https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/comirnaty-epar-product-information_ro.pdf), are there at this date joint working teams with specialists of the ministry of health and of the manufacturers of the vaccines proposed by the ministry?
Behind half a page of “answer” bearing no relation whatever to the question (“the idea that vaccinating the population against CoVid-19 is the principal way of controlling a pandemic is UNANIMOUSLY accepted ON A WIDE SCALE (sic!)…”), the Ministry’s silence and its evasion of an answer constitute in themselves an answer: at this date there ARE NO joint working teams with specialists of the ministry of health and of the manufacturers of the vaccines proposed by the ministry.
9. What proportion of the compensation owed by the Romanian State to the victims of the adverse effects of the vaccines is borne by the manufacturers of the vaccines that protect against CoVid?
To the question concerning compensation, the Ministry of Health informed us that it “has no competence in resolving the matters you raise”. Naturally! That is why I submitted this petition to the Ministry of Finance as well, which, however, was the first to decline competence. Never mind, we shall insist until we find out.
10. I ask you to place at my disposal the Contracts concluded by the Romanian state, respectively by the European Union, with the manufacturers of the vaccines that protect against CoVid, as well as any annexes subsequently signed by the Romanian state with these companies — these being contracts whose costs are borne from public money and which contain clauses that must be known to the Romanian citizen and patient.
To this request too the Ministry of Health has not deigned to answer, saying only that “as regards the contracts for the purchase of anti-CoVid-19 vaccines through which Romania has access to a vaccine against CoVid-19, they are concluded centrally at the level of the European Commission, on behalf of all the member states, between the European Commission and the manufacturer of the vaccine, and not directly by the Romanian state. These are in the form of APA (Advanced Purchase Agreement) and PA (Purchase Agreement) TRANSLATED INTO ROMANIAN; ACA (Acord de Cumpărare în Avans) and AC (Acord de Cumpărare). The member states must maintain the confidentiality of these contracts.”
What the Ministry fails to take into account, however, is that Law 544/2001 provides in art. 11¹ that “Any contracting authority, as defined by law, has the obligation to place at the disposal of the interested natural or legal person, under the conditions provided in art. 7, the public procurement contracts.”
That provision sets out in art. 12 certain exceptions, but not those mentioned by the ministry, so that, under the Law, it was and is obliged to place at our disposal without delay the public procurement Contracts (ACA (Advance Purchase Agreement) and AC (Purchase Agreement)) concerning the vaccines, so long as the vaccines are purchased with public money and the procurement contracts contain data essential to public health.
Only after studying such a document could it be said that you might have been able to express an INFORMED consent!
You may study my observations at length by following the link below:
https://t.me/DanMVChiticNecenzurat/719
Find the post on FacebookThe Facebook archive keeps no permanent addresses for posts, and this entry has no photograph from which an address could be rebuilt. The button above opens directly a search by a phrase from the text, on the author’s page.
Comments
Have your say. Comments appear once approved.