Compulsory vaccination for soldiers cancelled Commentary by Prof Dr Homburg

21.06.2024 | www.kla.tv/29465

Thanks to the tireless efforts of people who are researching the Corona period, more and more unbelievable things are now coming to the public. Much of what was sold to us as "scientific facts" over the past four years was, as the published RKI protocols show, just inventions by politicians. One example of this is the justification for compulsory vaccination in the Bundeswehr, which was introduced in November 2021: the aim was to prevent soldiers from becoming infected. 70 soldiers refused to comply with this order and were sued, dismissed from service, fined or even threatened with imprisonment. Many other soldiers involuntarily underwent mRNA treatment as a result of the compulsory vaccination. All of this happened even though there was no medical reason for the compulsory vaccination. To date, there is no study that proves that the vaccinations offer effective protection against transmission. Not only the vaccine manufacturer Pfizer, the European Medicines Agency or the RKI knew this, but also the German Ministry of Defense and Mr. Pistorius. In mid-May, the Defense Committee was still asserting that the vaccination requirement would remain in place. Now politicians are quietly backing down and will lift the vaccination requirement for soldiers on May 29, 2024. Why now so suddenly? Prof. Dr. Stefan Homburg in the following video from his YouTube channel "homburgshintergrund". "You know that many soldiers have been suing for years against the Corona vaccination requirement. Today something unexpected happened. Shortly before the oral hearing before the Federal Administrative Court, Federal Defense Minister Boris Pistorius lifted the vaccination requirement for soldiers and converted it into a pure recommendation. In keeping with the title of my series, I would like to explain the background to this decision to you here. Why did the Federal Defense Ministry order a vaccination requirement in the first place? The argument was always that the soldiers live close together in the barracks and one can infect the other, but the vaccination offers protection against transmission. Let's hear briefly what the Defense Minister said in the Bundestag last November" (scene is shown, min. 0:52): Member of the Bundestag Kay-Uwe Ziegler (AfD): Thank you, Madam President, my question is for Defense Minister Pistorius, and in fact, during the government questioning in May of this year, you referred to the When asked why the Corona vaccination requirement for soldiers is still in place, the following answer was given: 'that the weighing up of all risks clearly leads to the Covid-19 vaccination being the better option. That is your quote. A lady on 'Ask the State', who asked the Ministry of Defense (had reported this), replied: 'Please send me all the documents, studies that were used to weigh up the risks.' The Ministry of Defense's answer was: 'According to information from the Federal Ministry of Defense, there are no documents that form the basis of Defense Minister Boris Pistorius's statement on May 24, 2023 during the government questioning in the Bundestag. 'This means that the statement that risks have been weighed up cannot be justified. Is there a risk-benefit analysis that is currently available to continue to maintain the obligation to tolerate? Thank you. Boris Pistorius: Dear Members of Parliament, you will not expect me to answer something that you are presenting to me here that I do not know. Please forgive me for not doing that. I would like to know who the source is, who asked and answered the question. You must grant me that right. In addition, the following still applies: the Covid-19 vaccination is the best protection against severe disease progression, the best protection against infection, and that is still ... you can ... against passing on the infection. ... "You see, Pistorius insisted on protection against transmission. But why? Was this actually proven? Let's take a look at Pfizer's approval study, a huge study that must have cost over 100 million euros, with 40,000 subjects who were randomly selected. 20,000 received the vaccine and 20,000 a placebo. All of this is published in a medical journal (appears, min. 3:09). And you won't find the word "transmission protection" in the article. But you don't even need to read it. Let's hear what Pfizer's President for International Markets, Janine Small, said about this later in the EU Parliament" (appears, min. 3:26): A Dutch MP asks (German translation): Ms. Small, I have the following short question for you, to which I would like a clear answer. I speak English so that there are no misunderstandings: Was the Pfizer Covid-Immunevaccine tested to see if it stops virus transmission before it was launched? If not, state this clearly. If so, are you prepared to show us the data? And I really want a clear answer and I'm waiting for it. Thank you. Janine Small: Regarding the question of whether we knew about the protection from transmission before it was launched: No, haha. You know, we had to move at the speed of science to understand what was happening. "Ms Small laughs and says that according to her understanding of science, there was not enough time to determine protection from transmission. That's true. The study was actually supposed to last several years, but after just a few months there were more deaths in the vaccination group than in the control group. And then it was stopped. An emergency approval was granted anyway. It all sounds unbelievable, but it is in the article in question. The European Medicines Agency (EMA), which is responsible for approving vaccines, also explicitly wrote in a letter (appears, min. 4:50) to MPs that approval was not given because of transmission protection. This transmission protection was basically just an invention of politicians and marketing agencies. It was intended to get well-meaning people to get vaccinated voluntarily under the motto 'protect yourself and others'. And for the rest, state coercion was to be justified. Now to the legal side: The Federal Administrative Court had already ruled two years ago, and at the time it dismissed a soldier's lawsuit with some unease. The crucial sentence from this ruling is as follows (appears, min. 5:51): However, the Federal Ministry of Defense is also obliged in the future to evaluate and monitor the continuation of the Covid vaccination. How could it have been evaluated? Well, ideally with the data from the health insurance companies, of course. Most Germans are insured under statutory health insurance, and Paragraph 13, Paragraph 5 of the Infection Protection Act has required the RKI since the end of 2020, i.e. for almost 4 years, to use this data from the health insurance companies to check whether the vaccination is really safe and effective. And this is where data analyst Tom Lausen comes in. He wrote the bestseller 'The Intensive Care Lie' with Walter van Rossum, which is about fraud with corona beds, and now another book 'The Investigation' with his wife. Tom Lausen has been pestering the RKI for years with letters in which he asked about the status of the data query from the health insurance companies. And for years the RKI has responded with excuses that are so indescribable that I won't even repeat them. In any case, almost four years after the legal mandate, we still have no data that has flowed from the health insurance companies to the RKI. And Tom Lausen also thinks that it will stay that way. Smaller studies, such as those that are constantly appearing, with data that is not randomly selected, so-called observational studies, or the RKI data from hospitals, where many sick people are reported as having an 'unknown vaccination status', cannot of course justify such a serious intervention in life and health as compulsory vaccination. The RKI therefore did not have sufficient evidence with which to maintain compulsory vaccination. Why did the Federal Ministry of Defense abolish compulsory vaccination one day before the oral hearing? Well, that is pretty obvious. The Federal Ministry of Defense was probably expecting a defeat. And a defeat would have meant that a quotable supreme court ruling would be issued that could be kept for years and would serve as information for posterity. Because the plaintiff was granted leniency, as it is called, i.e. the reason for the lawsuit has disappeared, there is no ruling and the matter disappears more or less without a trace, it may get a few minor reports in the media. I am of the opinion, ladies and gentlemen, that all soldiers who have been disciplinarily punished, degraded or discharged must be fully rehabilitated. I think that is the least that can be done after this decision."

from rw. ah.

Sources/Links: Alles bleibt beim Alten 70 Soldaten verweigern die Impfung https://jungefreiheit.de/politik/deutschland/2024/bundeswehr-hebt-corona-impfpflicht-fuer-soldaten-auf/
Geldstrafe für Soldat https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/corona-geldstrafe-fuer-soldaten-wegen-verweigerter-impfung-a-4b17e6c6-c47b-4b99-a304-7d24ba10494f
Video Prof. Homburg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxxbISlpxtI
Beugearrest für Impfverweigerer https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/corona-schutz-in-der-bundeswehr-beuge-arrest-fuer-impfverweigerer-a-919a6dab-8878-44d7-8aa3-601abe35cab5