Was the compulsory vaccination for nursing staff and the armed forces unconstitutional?! Interview with Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: There was never any protection for third parties!

25.09.2024 | www.kla.tv/30573

Interviewer: On September 3, 2024, a court ruled for the first time that the facility-related vaccination requirement during the Corona period was possibly unconstitutional. A nursing assistant from Lower Saxony has filed a lawsuit against the ban on work imposed by the Osnabrück district. The responsible administrative court has now suspended the lawsuit and referred the matter to the Federal Constitutional Court. Kla.TV (www.kla.tv/30401) reported on this. Today we have Dr. Sonja Reitz as our guest. You were present at the court proceedings of the Osnabrück Administrative Court. Welcome! We are pleased to be able to talk to you today about the scope and significance of this court case. But before we get into the topic, please briefly introduce yourself again for the viewers. Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: Yes, I am Sonja Reitz. I am a general practitioner and psychotherapist and naturopathic doctor. And I am the managing director and spokesperson of the Hippocratic Oath Doctors' Association. (https://www.aerzte-hippokratischer-eid.de/de/) This is a doctors' association that has set itself the goal of restoring ethics in medicine, because we see that in many cases lobbying and financial orientation have taken over and patients are often harmed or at least suffer as a result. So it is important to us that medicine becomes human again and safer. Interviewer: Yes, that is a good concern. You were present at this court case. What did you experience there and what was special about this court case? Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: Yes, thank you for addressing the topic, because I think it is very, very important to understand it in all its significance, because it was like this... It was like this: there was a case there, a nursing assistant was banned from entering because she had not been vaccinated. That was announced in November 2022, and at the end of 2022 the vaccination requirement in the health care system expired. And now it is the case that in these judgments over the last few months and years, it has actually always been decided very clearly: Yes, that was the law and the law was not complied with, so it is right to impose penalties and bans on entry. And now the RKI files have become public, where it is clear that in many places the RKI did not act scientifically at all, but on political instructions. Then of course it suddenly becomes clear that the highest court jurisprudence, i.e. the Constitutional Court, in its judgment - they only relied on the RKI, that they relied on a dependent authority and not on science. And everything that has happened up to now in the processes relating to the facility-related vaccination requirement has to be reopened. Also, for example, the soldiers' trials (Info: From November 2021 to May 2024, there was a corona vaccination requirement for Bundeswehr soldiers), some of which resulted in really terrible verdicts. ("Verdict after 20 years of service: Soldier Woitalla loses everything" (11.09.24) https://t.me/TomLausen/665 ) And now back to Osnabrück. The judge there saw it exactly that way, said that the RKI files are on the table. We can't look away and bury our heads in the sand, we need a proper collection of evidence. Is the RKI an independent authority or did it act on instructions? And Professor Schaade, who was questioned there in the witness stand - this questioning lasted over two hours, confirmed that it was acted on instructions. He then pulled a trick and described it as a management level when things were not scientific. But it was very clear that the action was being taken on instructions, in close contact with the Federal Ministry of Health. That led the judge to ultimately rule that this process must be put on hold for the time being, suspended, and the question must be referred back to the Federal Constitutional Court as to whether it was even legal to issue the vaccination requirement, or in this case, that it should still be in place in November 2022. So that was a real novelty, so to speak, that someone was taking evidence. And he did it very accurately and expertly. And that was... that was a glimmer of hope for me that the law would once again prevail in the jurisprudence and not the political majority opinion or the political opinion represented by the government. Whether that is still a majority opinion or not is precisely the question. So in any case, in recent months one has had the strong impression that the courts, instead of taking evidence, are actually only looking forthese laws, although they are obviously – obviously and patently – in conflict with reality. Interviewer: All these entry bans and so on, the professional bans, the dishonorable discharge of soldiers, were massive infringements on basic rights. Was anything said about that? It was an unusual process, the likes of which had never been seen before in Germany. Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: The trial in Osnabrück was led by the president of the court. And he is... he himself is also a very strong expert on basic rights theory, i.e. the legal doctrine on the subject of basic rights, and he dealt with it very, very thoroughly. He said that if you suspend basic rights - basic rights are rights that each of us has, and we only give the state the authority to do this or that, but basic rights must be secured. And the state may only suspend or restrict basic rights if it has really good reasons. And he has to check these good reasons closely to see whether they really exist. Interviewer: And did that happen? Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: He has to ask the question, so to speak: can I really achieve my goal with what I want to achieve by suspending fundamental rights? So is it appropriate and proportionate? Another question: or are there milder means? Yes, and here he then worked out very precisely that, for example, this vaccination did not protect others at all and that a normal throat swab test would have been much more reliable in determining whether someone was infectious or not. This facility-based vaccination requirement in the health care system was made to protect vulnerable groups of people, older people with immune deficiencies or whatever, so that no one would bring the infections in. But if vaccinated people are just as infectious as unvaccinated people, which several studies have already shown in July 21 and in August... Well, in July it was the CDC, that is the American RKI, that determined this, and that was on July 30. And that must have been known because it was widely reported in the New York Times. And then in August, which is also noted in the RKI files, on August 24, there was a study from Oxford that said the same thing, an English study: vaccinated people are just as infectious as unvaccinated people. And on August 25 - I've put this in front of my nose because it's so amazing actually - there was a study from Israel. In this respect, it is completely incomprehensible how, four months later, the RKI did not step forward in the Bundestag and say that there should be no compulsory vaccination at all, because vaccinated people are just as contagious, and if we now let the vaccinated work and not the unvaccinated, then the vaccinated will infect all the vulnerable groups. Yes, they should have said that, but nobody said it. It even became clear at the hearing in the Bundestag that there is no data at all. Prof. Karagiannidis said there that we do not know how many Covid-19 patients in intensive care units are vaccinated and unvaccinated. There was no data on that. Yes, so it was not at all clear that the vaccinated are protected from severe courses of the disease. It was always just claimed. Yes, and the Bundestag somehow put all of that aside, did not really pay attention to it. And that is why, in my opinion, this law was actually unconstitutional from the start, because it could not achieve its purpose, namely the protection of the vulnerable groups. Protection could have been achieved with much milder means, such as regular swab tests to determine whether someone is infectious or not. And if someone has a cold, they would have had to get tested. And you can also reduce the germ load with milder means, mouth disinfection, etc. So you would have had the same, if not better, effect with other methods, and you would not have been allowed to restrict people's right to physical integrity, which is one of the fundamental rights that were restricted here, or the right to freedom of occupation, freedom to practice a profession, in the judge's opinion. The judge also said that it was at the end of 2022, and that it should have been closely monitored. It should have actually been done before it came into force... - he didn't say that now, that's what I'm saying. In December 2021, the Bundestag passed this law - actually nonsensical, because the studies were already on the table half a year earlier, or a quarter of a year earlier, the studies that it makes no difference. Even the WHO wrote in December 2021: There is no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. They have given up on the distinction when it comes to infection. Nevertheless, our Bundestag decided at this point to make vaccination compulsory for the Pflegends and for the Bundeswehr, although it was already clear at the time how dangerous these vaccinations are, because we had an extreme increase in side effects in the European database EMA. And we had an extreme increase in deaths, which we can actually see in all statistics from June 2021 and for which there is no other explanation. There were no PCR-positive deaths in this number. Suddenly the mortality rate rose and emergency admissions to hospitals increased, for heart conditions and neurological issues. Interviewer: You talked about the need for the review. Wouldn't it have been necessary to intervene when the variant changed from Delta to Omicron? Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: Yes, I already said it. So the Bundestag's decision was not really justified by anything, because there was no protection for others, but also the effectiveness of the vaccination, which was designed for the Wuhan virus - for example, against a serious illness, which was at least a little present at the beginning, but never in the way that was promised. But it was at least visible. That actually disappeared with Omikron. And there was no protection for others either. As I said, even the WHO has determined that vaccinated people are just as contagious as unvaccinated people. And the Omikron change was around January to February, and that is remarkable, which is why this compulsory vaccination should never have been introduced. There was a report from South Africa from the Medical Association, the head of which said: We now have the new variant here, it is contagious, really contagious, but it is not dangerous. We are actually seeing quite harmless courses of the disease, like with a cold, etc. We have not seen an increase in death rates. We have no hospitalization problems. At that moment, there was no longer any need for any vaccination. This also applies to the other vaccinations. Then one would have had to say: “Ah, we now have an increase in deaths. The vaccination could have something to do with it. Stop! Take the vaccination off the market! Suspend approval! It is made for a completely different variant and does not protect others.” But what is our state doing here? It let it continue, as if it could not put the brakes on. And then the judge said something very important: If it is about restrictions on basic rights and the state was able to issue completely new decrees and further restrict basic rights within three days during the lockdown phase in 2020, then it can also be able to restore basic rights and lift these restrictions within one or two days if new findings emerge. And he sees a real - or he made it clear, he didn't phrase it like that, but it was very clear in the entire evidence that he sees a real legal defect in the fact that this did not happen. That a) the vaccination requirement was put into effect in the first place - and that happened on March 16th - and that it was carried through to the end, even though it no longer made any sense. On the contrary, it is even known that the vaccinated received Omicron two to three times more often because they became more susceptible to the other virus variants, because their immunity, their defenses, were rather reduced. Interviewer: Interesting aspect. Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: The RKI should have determined all of this, said: There are risk signals, dear government, please don't! So the government was let in on this. They were, let's say, left uninformed about what they actually know. And it allowed them to decide on a restriction of fundamental rights that is unconstitutional. And I see a very, very clear blame on the part of the RKI and the Minister of Health, who were well informed by the RKI, and also on the part of the Paul Ehrlich Institute and the licensing institutes, because they knew full well that there were no studies at all that proved that these vaccinations protected others. That was already clear to them in January 2021. Interviewer: That was, so to speak, the judge's statement that he had taken this evidence, and he has now returned it to the Federal Constitutional Court. Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: Yes. Interviewer: What do you expect from this decision there? Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: Well, we actually experienced a serious disappointment from the Federal Constitutional Court in April 22, when it was decided that this facility-based vaccination requirement was supposedly constitutional. Anyone who knows a little about medicine and knows that there is no protection for others asks themselves why the constitutional judge can decide something like that? Basic rights are suspended to protect people, even though there is no protection at all. That contradicts common sense. That is where I say,the law was bent. If I just give a layman's opinion. [...] Well, I really hope that Mr. Harbarth [...] will return to the ground of sound jurisprudence and above all protect the constitutional rights of the population. Interviewer: Which is his job. Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: That is his job, yes. Interviewer: Well, it is precisely Mr. Harbarth who has been noticed for hanging out with the powerful in this country. The Federal Constitutional Court has recently made very politically friendly rulings. And the question is, can we as citizens do something now to influence this decision of the Federal Constitutional Court? And if so, what might that look like? Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: So what has proven successful here... - thank you for this question, because it is very important. Because we don't know whether Mr Harbarth now realises his mistake and does it more thoroughly and sensibly. And he also sees that there is no protection for others. That is disproportionate, there are milder means and it doesn't have the same effect. And that is why it is very important that the population takes part in the Monday demonstrations as best they can. Self-determination is the theme there. Freedom, peace, self-determination. There are actually these Monday demonstrations in all cities. And on the other hand, it is clear that we should also address the local members of the Bundestag, the regional ones, and say: people, what did you decide back then? Please change your mind! And also the rehabilitation of all the people who have been harmed by it, especially those who have lost their jobs. Others have lost their livelihoods, others have lost their health and are fighting for recognition. And there too, it is made difficult for them by experts saying that if something looks a little bit like it could have been something else, then we would not recognise it. So there is a gauntlet for the relatives. So speaking to the members of the Bundestag is one of my pieces of advice. And the next point, the third point, which is also very important: If there is a suspicion of a side effect, please report it to the Paul Ehrlich Institute! There is a central internet reporting point where anyone can report suspected side effects from a vaccination, so you don't have to bother the doctor, who may be hesitant to do it themselves because they run the risk of liability if you then report the side effects yourself to the Paul Ehrlich Institute. And you don't have to prove that it is a side effect, just the suspicion. That means that if there is a temporal connection, then we talk within three months. But if it is a serious illness, such as cancer, it takes a little longer. Then you can also say after six months or twelve months, I say I see a connection to the vaccination, I suspect it. If masses of people do this, the Paul Ehrlich Institute will at some point no longer be able to claim that we can't see anything. At the moment, we have the situation that only one to six percent of all side effects are reported at all. And of course, that gives a completely distorted picture. And now imagine that Mr. Harbarth has already referred to the RKI when he now says, I am only referring to the Paul Ehrlich Institute - no matter how deficient the reports are there, how deficient the management there is, because there are only eleven people who are responsible for millions of vaccine doses for millions of vaccine injuries, eleven people have not been increased! They have increased something everywhere, vaccination centers have been built up, who knows how many billions have been squandered, completely unnecessarily squandered. But drug monitoring in Germany has been left at the same level, even though we have been given a highly experimental, genetically altering and completely unexplored gene therapy as a vaccination there, which we have never had before, where the studies were also carried out with a completely different substance than was ultimately used for vaccination. Very few people know that. Yes, it is a completely different manufacturing process with more impurities in it. So I just wanted to say that so that Mr. Harbarth cannot rely on the Paul Ehrlich Institute - nothing has been reported there, there is nothing there - it is important that everyone who suspects a vaccination side effect reports it. That is possible. You can do it electronically, but you can also do it on paper and send it there. So there are forms that you can download. If you are not able to do it yourself, you can certainly ask a friend or a son or daughter to make it technically possible, because there are so many side effects. It is all the psychological side effects.ns, such as exhaustion or impaired thinking, memory loss. People then no longer have the drive, they become depressed and no longer dare to go outside, or think it is old age. But it is so often the case that vaccination causes dementia, vaccination causes deterioration, vaccination causes illness... - or the increased infections or embolisms, thrombosis, all the heart diseases, autoimmune diseases, cancer, all of these can be connected. I mean, it has been talked about many times before, that this vaccination can cause a real, let's say, flood of different syndromes. And it is just as absurd that what the Paul Ehrlich Institute, for example, has announced, that they cannot identify a vaccination syndrome because it is not a uniform clinical picture. So that is how absurd our drug monitoring works. I said that with a slight cynical disdain. That is how it is, I have no respect for it anymore, so. Interviewer: It is all the more important that citizens themselves become active and make these entries. We can only recommend that the data that you enter there is also entered on the “Vetopedia.org” website. This is a government and industry-independent portal that provides a backup in case the Paul Ehrlich Institute claims that the data is not sufficient. Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: Yes, if you have not received a response within four weeks. So if you report a damage, you should actually receive a letter within three, four, five, six weeks. We have been notified of the damage and we will get back to you at some point. So a notification of receipt, and the Paul Ehrlich Institute with its eleven people no longer has time to do it. That is why you should document it, as you have already said, so that you have proof yourself. And what is also very important, which many people may not know, is that if you were vaccinated in 2021 and then something happened: susceptibility to infection, shingles or an autoimmune disease or joint pain all of a sudden, migraines that you didn't have before, or you lost a child, for example. There is far too little talk about the fertility disorder that this causes, that can expire at the end of 2024 if it occurred in 2021. (Note: The claim for damages against the vaccine manufacturer can, under certain circumstances, expire three years after knowledge of the occurrence of the damage.) So if the symptom occurred in 2021, then we have to now - we are already well into the year - get a lawyer involved to file a lawsuit. So don't just write a nice letter, the lawsuit has to be in the box before December 31, 2024. And we hope that legal protection insurers will also provide support. [...] Interviewer: Yes, thank you for this assessment. Many are currently taking legal action. Prof. Bhakdi (www.kla.tv/30100) has recommended that vaccination doctors should also be held accountable because they have violated their duty to inform. Ralf Ludwig (www.kla.tv/27600) has filed 600 criminal complaints against those responsible for the Corona crisis so that their decisions can be reviewed, and I believe that these suspected cases, which are just that, will help to build up a certain amount of pressure so that those responsible adhere to the applicable law. We are through with that today. Thank you for your assessment of this court case, and we hope that the law will continue to make a breakthrough there. Dr. med. Sonja Reitz: Thank you very much.

from Stephan/ Tabea sl./ts.

Sources/Links: Die anderen Quellen werden diese Woche noch gesichert, es müssen nicht die Freisteller machen, sind ja sehr viele! RKI-Files als Beweis bei Gerichtsverhandlung: Pflege-Impfpflicht verfassungswidrig?! www.kla.tv/30401
NDR: Corona-Prozess um Pflegehelferin geht ans Bundesverfassungsgericht (4.9.24) https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/osnabrueck_emsland/Corona-Prozess-um-Pflegehelferin-geht-ans-Bundesverfassungsgericht,corona11594.html
Berliner Zeitung: Höchstgericht soll entscheiden: Verletzte die einrichtungsbezogene Impfpflicht Grundrechte? (3.9.24) https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/gesundheit-oekologie/bundesverfassungsgericht-soll-entscheiden-verletzte-die-einrichtungsbezogene-impfpflicht-grundrechte-li.2250761
Presseinformation Nr. 19-2024 Verwaltungsgericht Osnabrück legt Bundesverfassungsgericht Entscheidung über einrichtungs- und unternehmensbezogene Nachweispflicht vor https://www.verwaltungsgericht-osnabrueck.niedersachsen.de/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/verwaltungsgericht-osnabruck-legt-bundesverfassungsgericht-entscheidung-uber-einrichtungs-und-unternehmensbezogene-nachweispflicht-vor-235240.html
Datenanalyst Tom Lausen kommentiert die Gerichtsverhandlung (3.9.24) https://t.me/tomdabassman/6046
https://t.me/tomdabassman/6048
Tichys Einblick Holger Douglas: „Pfleger-Impfpflicht verfassungswidrig Nach RKI-Files: Folgenreicher Beschluss des Verwaltungsgerichts Osnabrück“ (4.9.24) https://www.tichyseinblick.de/daili-es-sentials/verwaltungsgericht-osnabrueck-pfleger-impfpflicht/
NiUS: Wortwechsel zwischen dem vorsitzenden Richter und RKI-Präsident Lars Schaade https://www.nius.de/corona/rki-chef-gesteht-vor-gericht-politische-einflussnahme-selbstverstaendlich-weisungen-nehmen-wir-entgegen/8b75463b-bf64-4910-adbb-b88fd39fbdea
Ärztlichen Berufsverband Hippokratischer Eid e.V. https://www.aerzte-hippokratischer-eid.de/de/
“Urteil nach 20 Jahren Dienst: Soldat Woitalla verliert alles” (11.09.24) https://t.me/TomLausen/665
Osnabrück: Anwältin beschreibt Gerichtsverhandlung mit Lars Schaade (6.9.24) https://blog.bastian-barucker.de/osnabrueck-anwaeltin-beschreibt-gerichtsverhandlung-mit-lars-schaade/
Dr. Sonja Reitz: „Impfpflicht ist nur zulässig, wenn Fremdschutz gegeben ist, der aber war nie erforscht worden, und auch nicht gegeben.“ Vergleich RKI-Files 11.1.21, Emer Cooke Aussage 18.10.23 Studie von CDC (Juli 2021): (Geimpfte sind auch ansteckend) https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/108440
https://sfist.com/2021/07/27/cdc-confirms-that-viral-loads-in-vaccinated-people-with-delta-are-indistinguishable-from-unvaccinated/
Bekannt gemacht durch NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/covid-cdc-delta-masks.html
Studie aus Oxford (August 2021): Preprint 24.8.21 in Nature Medicine: Pouwels K. et al: Auswirkungen von Delta auf Viruslast und Impfstoffwirksamkeit gegen neue SARS-CoV-2-Infektionen in Großbritannien https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.18.21262237v1
6.9.21 peer reviewed veröffentlicht in Nature Medicine https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7
Studie aus Israel (August 2021) (Geimpfte sind gefährdeter als Genesene und übertragen Covid-19) Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections (25.8.21) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
Studie aus Schottland: (Geimpfte sind genauso ansteckend wie Ungeimpfte) Scotland Urged to Abandon Vaccine Passports After Research Showing Vaccinated Just as Infectious as Unvaccinated (18.11.21) https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/18/scotland-urged-to-abandon-vaccine-passports-after-research-showing-vaccinated-just-as-infectious-as-unvaccinated/
Literaturliste zum Thema: Geimpfte waren wissenschaftlich nachgewiesen seit August 2021 so ansteckend wie Ungeimpfte https://www.aerzte-hippokratischer-eid.de/de/corona/geimpfte-so-ansteckend-wie-ungeimpfte/
Stellungnahme zur Bundestagsanhörung am 8.12.2021 der Einzelsachverständigen https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/870924/402c53a9b5797274d925d937eeb466de/Gem-Stellungnahme-von-Prof-Dr-Karagiannidis-Prof-Dr-Meyer-Hermann-.pdf
Mit Mund-Desinfektion Keimlast senken Mund- und Nasenspülungen reduzieren stark die Viruslast und damit eine Ansteckungsgefahr https://www.krankenhaushygiene.de/pdfdata/2020_12_02_Empfehlung-viruzides-gurgeln-nasenspray.pdf
WHO zu Ansteckung von Geimpften (November 2021) Die WHO empfahl am 24.11.21 auch Geimpften weiterhin trotz Impfungen Masken in Innenräumen und erklärt, dass auch Geimpfte ansteckend sind. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/24/who-tells-fully-vaccinated-to-wear-masks-physically-distance-as-infections-surge.html
Südafrikanische Ärztevereinigung zu Omikron 27.11.21: Südafrikanische Ärztevereinigung vertreten durch Dr. Angelique Coetzee, South African medical association: nur leichte Symptome und zwei Tage Muskelkater, das sei alles und nichts wovor man sich fürchten müsse. https://www.samedical.org/about-us/board
Im deutschsprachigen Raum verbreitet am 28.11.2021: Omikron lt. Südafrika nicht gefährlicher als Delta, noch keine Einlieferung bekannt. 28.11.21 https://report24.news/suedafrikanische-behoerden-zu-omicron-variante-offenbar-kein-grund-zur-furcht/
https://www.nicd.ac.za/frequently-asked-questions-for-the-b-1-1-529-mutated-sars-cov-2-lineage-in-south-africa/
Geimpfte erkranken 2-3 x häufiger an Covid-19 schottische Studie, unterschiedliche Gruppengrößen wurde berücksichtigt https://wiges.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2204-FS4-mailing.html
und https://wiges.org/fremdschutz/?by=html
Geimpfte stecken sich 3-4 mal häufiger an als Ungeimpfte pro 100.000 der jeweiligen Gruppe https://www.transparenztest.de/post/ukhsa-daten-zeigen-absurditaet-einer-impfpflicht-fuer-ueber-50jaehrige-auf
Immunabwehr geschwächt nach Boosterungen (22.12.22) Class switch toward noninflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798
Todd Callendar, US-Militär: Impfungen erzeugen Immunschwäche wie Aids und 11 x mehr Todesfälle und Behinderungen bei 18-40 Jährigen in nur 10 Monaten als vorher. Datengrundlage: Versorgungswerk des US-Militärs, Mitteilung (21.3.22) https://www.bitchute.com/video/2YwzbLsT82R2/
Studienanalyse von Dr. Kremer auf tkp: Turbokrebs und Infektanfälligkeit: Zwei Seiten derselben Medaille (12.4.23) https://tkp.at/2023/04/12/turbokrebs-und-infektanfaelligkeit-zwei-seiten-derselben-medaille/
C19-Impfungen und Anfälligkeit für Entzündungen (16.4.23) https://tkp.at/2023/04/16/c19-impfungen-und-anfaelligkeit-fuer-entzuendungen/
Geimpfte nach 6 Monaten infektanfälliger für Covid-19 und für andere Viruserkrankungen 2023_03_10_ Chemaitelly, Hiam et al. in: The Lancet: Long-term COVID-19 booster effectiveness by infection history and clinical vulnerability and immune imprinting: a retrospective population-based cohort study https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2823%2900058-0
Die Akte Stephan Harbarth – Präsident des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes www.kla.tv/21609
Zum Herstellungsprozess der Corona-mRNA-Impfungen: Die EMA und das PEI wussten bereits bei der bedingten Zulassung 20.12.2020 Bescheid und haben die Bevölkerung nicht informiert: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
Die mit Bakterien durchgeführte Massenproduktion war nur an 200 Personen über sehr wenige Wochen getestet worden und enthält regelmäßig schwere und gefährliche Verunreinigungen mit DNA, was die Krebsentstehung fördert. https://t.me/Aerzte_hippokratischer_Eid/1160
https://t.me/Aerzte_hippokratischer_Eid/1029
https://t.me/Aerzte_hippokratischer_Eid/1030
Gentechnik am Menschen durch mRNA-basierte „Impfstoff“-Technologie! www.kla.tv/28669
Methodological Considerations Regarding the Quantification of DNA Impurities in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Comirnaty® https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9279/7/3/41
Dr. Jürgen O. Kirchner im Interview mit Epoch Times (25.9.23) Hochgradige Verunreinigung in BioNTech-Impfstoff mit DNA und Plasmiden, Anreicherung vor allem in Eierstöcken. „Jede Impfung war damit illegal“ https://www.epochtimes.de/epoch-tv/aktuelles/vor-ort/vorort-spezial-massive-dna-verunreinigung-in-biontech-impfstoff-jede-impfung-damit-war-illegal-a4415057.html
Ra Tobias Ulbrich: https://x.com/AnwaltUlbrich/status/1837568740067553488
Literaturliste (unvollständig), zu den häufigen und extremen Schäden durch die Covid-19 „Impfung“ https://www.aerzte-hippokratischer-eid.de/de/impfnebenwirkungen-corona/literaturliste-covid-19-impfnebenwirkungsstudien-thematisch-gegliedert-auswahl/
https://www.aerzte-hippokratischer-eid.de/de/impfnebenwirkungen-corona/nebenwirkungen-bei-kindern/
Prof. Bhakdi an der Demo Berlin: “Corona-Menschenexperiment aufarbeiten sichert Frieden” www.kla.tv/30100
Groß-Demo in Karlsruhe: Corona-Verbrechen kommen zur Anzeige (Ralf Ludwig und ZAAVV) www.kla.tv/27600
Nebenwirkung selbst melden: Laut RKI und PEI kann der Verdacht einer Nebenwirkung auch selbst gemeldet werden: „Sie haben das Recht, den Behörden unerwünschte Wirkungen von Arzneimitteln direkt zu melden. Sie können Verdachtsfälle von Nebenwirkungen für sich oder auch im Namen einer anderen Person melden, die Sie betreuen, wie etwa im Namen eines Kindes bzw. einer oder eines Angehörigen. Denken Sie daran, mit Ihrer Ärztin/ Ihrem Arzt oder Apotheker/in zu sprechen, wenn Sie aufgrund vermuteter Nebenwirkungen besorgt sind.“ https://www.pei.de/DE/arzneimittelsicherheit/pharmakovigilanz/meldeformulare-online-meldung/nebenwirkungsmeldung-verbraucher-inhalt.html
Hinweis: Der Schadensersatzanspruch gegen den Impfstoffhersteller kann unter Umständen drei Jahre nach Kenntniserlangung vom Schadenseintritt verjähren. https://www.nwzonline.de/niedersachsen/anwalt-warnt-verjaehrung-von-corona-impfschaeden-droht-bis-ende-2024_a_4,1,470609673.html
https://gettr.com/post/p364ljz8f45