Right to Life
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bang: Switzerland Withdraws
All Covid Vaccination Recommendations
April 07, 2023 - Switzerland stops the Covid vaccinations: all vaccination recommendations have been withdrawn, doctors can only administer the controversial vaccines in individual cases under certain conditions - but then bear the risk of liability for vaccination damage. When will countries like Germany and Austria follow this example?
The Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) and the Federal Commission for Vaccination Issues (EKIF) stated in their vaccination recommendation (as of April 3rd, 2023) (to be found on this website):
/E126-Sho.jpg)
"In principle, the FOPH and EKIF will not formulate a recommendation for vaccination against Covid-19 in spring/summer 2023 due to the expected low virus circulation and the high level of immunity in the population."
Vaccination is only possible in individual cases – namely:
"Vaccination is possible for people who are particularly at risk (BGP) ≥ 16 years of age if the attending physician considers it to be medically indicated in the respective epidemiological situation in the individual case, a temporarily increased protection against serious illness is to be expected and the last vaccination dose at least 6 months ago."
However, no vaccination recommendation for risk patients is explicitly given here.
In the following, it will be discussed that the effectiveness of vaccinations against current variants is reduced and short-lived – especially for people who are at risk. The adaptation of the mRNA vaccine could not keep up with the development of the variants. The recommendations of the BAG could change if there is a new wave of outbreaks, but even then, according to the document, vaccinations are no longer recommended for people under the age of 65.
No positive risk-benefit ratio
The remarks on “Adverse Vaccination Symptoms” (UIE) are also piquant:
"According to the current state of knowledge, the risk of severe UIE with a recommended vaccination is much lower than the risk of a complication from Covid-19, against which the vaccination protects. The benefit of the vaccination administered according to the recommendation therefore outweighs the possible risks."
In the case of the valid non-recommendation, this essentially means that there is no longer a positive benefit-risk ratio for any Covid vaccination.
Liability: the federal government is out, doctors have a duty
The new recommendations also have consequences for liability. This is what the BAG document on the Covid vaccination strategy (as of November 29, 2022) says:
/E126-Sto.jpg)
"Compensation by the federal government to injured persons for vaccination damage can only be considered for vaccinations if they were officially recommended or ordered (see Art. 64 EpG)."
However, the federal government only stepped in if the damage was not covered by the vaccine manufacturer, the person vaccinating or an insurance company. The person vaccinating – i.e. generally the doctor – can be held liable if he has breached his duty of care. In this context, it is pointed out that the same rules regarding patient information apply to the Covid vaccination as to all other vaccinations.
The fact is, however, that very few doctors are likely to have informed their patients correctly about all the risks and side effects and the limited effectiveness of the Covid vaccinations. The off-label use of vaccines (not unusual for Covid vaccinations, for example the bivalent mRNA vaccines in Switzerland are not approved as first vaccinations, not as a booster for people under the age of 18 and not as a fifth vaccination) must be discussed become. For doctors, the justification of vaccinations is becoming more difficult due to the changed recommendations, according to a BAG document on liability issues:
"If the doctor treating you bases his/her choice or prescription on the vaccination recommendations of the BAG, he/she can prove that he/she has observed the recognized rules of medical and pharmaceutical sciences and has therefore complied with the duty of care under the law on medicinal products."
The "Weltwoche" reports that from now on the doctors have to be liable for the vaccination - which should probably decrease their willingness to vaccinate significantly.
Comment by R. Malone, MD
And then there is this article from the same Swiss source, Report 24. Those paying attention may recall that I was perhaps the first to raise the alarm that the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein is a toxin and that it interacts with the brain, a statement for which I was repeatedly attacked for spreading false information by a wide variety of media including various “factchecker” organizations which (falsely) asserted that the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein used in the vaccines had been modified to make it non-toxic.
Are those organizations now liable for the damage incurred when patients accepted the COVID-19 genetic vaccines which caused their bodies to make high levels of Spike protein due to their suppression of scientific information required for true informed consent?
I guess Nancy Regan was right after all. Drugs kill brain cells. Only different drugs than she was thinking of. Specifically the drugs that the FDA and CDC call safe and effective “vaccines” which deliver SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein into your body.
This article was published on April 8, 2023, in Substack, a newsletter of Dr. Robert Malone, MD. It was machine translated from the original German article in the Swiss site Report 24.
The Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) and the Federal Commission for Vaccination Issues (EKIF) stated in their vaccination recommendation (as of April 3rd, 2023) (to be found on this website):
Vaccination is only possible in individual cases – namely:
"Vaccination is possible for people who are particularly at risk (BGP) ≥ 16 years of age if the attending physician considers it to be medically indicated in the respective epidemiological situation in the individual case, a temporarily increased protection against serious illness is to be expected and the last vaccination dose at least 6 months ago."
However, no vaccination recommendation for risk patients is explicitly given here.
In the following, it will be discussed that the effectiveness of vaccinations against current variants is reduced and short-lived – especially for people who are at risk. The adaptation of the mRNA vaccine could not keep up with the development of the variants. The recommendations of the BAG could change if there is a new wave of outbreaks, but even then, according to the document, vaccinations are no longer recommended for people under the age of 65.
No positive risk-benefit ratio
The remarks on “Adverse Vaccination Symptoms” (UIE) are also piquant:
"According to the current state of knowledge, the risk of severe UIE with a recommended vaccination is much lower than the risk of a complication from Covid-19, against which the vaccination protects. The benefit of the vaccination administered according to the recommendation therefore outweighs the possible risks."
In the case of the valid non-recommendation, this essentially means that there is no longer a positive benefit-risk ratio for any Covid vaccination.
Liability: the federal government is out, doctors have a duty
The new recommendations also have consequences for liability. This is what the BAG document on the Covid vaccination strategy (as of November 29, 2022) says:
Each doctor has to assume responsibility
if he prescribes vaccines
However, the federal government only stepped in if the damage was not covered by the vaccine manufacturer, the person vaccinating or an insurance company. The person vaccinating – i.e. generally the doctor – can be held liable if he has breached his duty of care. In this context, it is pointed out that the same rules regarding patient information apply to the Covid vaccination as to all other vaccinations.
The fact is, however, that very few doctors are likely to have informed their patients correctly about all the risks and side effects and the limited effectiveness of the Covid vaccinations. The off-label use of vaccines (not unusual for Covid vaccinations, for example the bivalent mRNA vaccines in Switzerland are not approved as first vaccinations, not as a booster for people under the age of 18 and not as a fifth vaccination) must be discussed become. For doctors, the justification of vaccinations is becoming more difficult due to the changed recommendations, according to a BAG document on liability issues:
"If the doctor treating you bases his/her choice or prescription on the vaccination recommendations of the BAG, he/she can prove that he/she has observed the recognized rules of medical and pharmaceutical sciences and has therefore complied with the duty of care under the law on medicinal products."
The "Weltwoche" reports that from now on the doctors have to be liable for the vaccination - which should probably decrease their willingness to vaccinate significantly.
Comment by R. Malone, MD
And then there is this article from the same Swiss source, Report 24. Those paying attention may recall that I was perhaps the first to raise the alarm that the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein is a toxin and that it interacts with the brain, a statement for which I was repeatedly attacked for spreading false information by a wide variety of media including various “factchecker” organizations which (falsely) asserted that the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein used in the vaccines had been modified to make it non-toxic.
Are those organizations now liable for the damage incurred when patients accepted the COVID-19 genetic vaccines which caused their bodies to make high levels of Spike protein due to their suppression of scientific information required for true informed consent?
I guess Nancy Regan was right after all. Drugs kill brain cells. Only different drugs than she was thinking of. Specifically the drugs that the FDA and CDC call safe and effective “vaccines” which deliver SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein into your body.
Posted April 14, 2023
______________________
______________________
