Switzerland No Longer Recommends Covid
Jabs
Declares that All Liability Rests w/Doctors
by epimetheus
April 08, 2023
from
DieFackel2.0 Website
In a
surprising move,
the
Federal Health Agency
quietly
moved
towards
a kind of resolution of
the jab
conundrum;
while a
good thing,
it's
also a far cry
from any
kind of reckoning
Well, this Holy Week is certainly different from last
year's.
In a surprising
move earlier this week, the Swiss Federal Health Agency (Bundesgesundheitsamt,
BAG) declared (my translation, emphases):
In general,
no Covid-19 vaccination is recommended in spring/summer
2023. Persons who are particularly at risk may receive
vaccination after individual clarification [with their
GP]…
Almost all persons in Switzerland are vaccinated and/or
have undergone Covid-19.
Their immune system has dealt
with the coronavirus accordingly. In spring/summer 2023,
the virus will probably circulate less. The current
virus variants also cause rather mild disease.
For
autumn 2023, the vaccination recommendation will be
evaluated again and adjusted accordingly.
I'd call that a
start, in particular as the 'original' shots are 'targeting'
a pathogen (the Wuhan strain) that is no longer among us;
also, the 'bivalent boosters' are addressing another strain
that hasn't been much around as of late.
More from the BAG:
Covid-19
vaccination is currently not recommended for people who
are particularly at risk. However, they can receive a
vaccination after individual clarification with your
doctor.
Vaccination can be useful in individual cases
because it improves protection against severe illness
for several months.
This applies regardless of the total
number of vaccinations you have already received.
Well, what can I
say about this? Still stupid, but at least no longer
completely unhinged.
People who are particularly at risk include:
People aged
65 and over
People aged 16 and over with a chronic illness
People aged 16 and over with trisomy 21
Pregnant women
I still don't
understand why these categories are there, as there's
little, if any data on particularly these groups (and none
in the 'trials').
What I consider particularly appalling is the following
section:
If your
doctor recommends the Covid 19 vaccination, the
following applies:
Vaccination Timing: Covid-19 vaccination may be given
from 6 months after the last vaccination or from 6
months after a known infection with the coronavirus.
Other
vaccinations with inactivated vaccines can be given at
the same time as, before or after a Covid-19
vaccination. [as if it wouldn't matter if one has
undergone infection; do we do the same with, e.g.,
measles?]
Vaccine: It is preferable to be vaccinated with a
variant-adapted (bivalent) mRNA vaccine or with the
protein-based vaccine from Novavax. It does not matter
with which vaccine the previous vaccinations were made.
Monovalent
mRNA vaccines also continue to provide good protection
against severe courses with hospital admissions.
[authorities provide no data or clinical evidence]
Important: Pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as
people with a severely weakened immune system should be
vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
Yet, the Swiss
wouldn't be themselves if they didn't think about money:
Who pays for
the vaccination?
Those who wish to be vaccinated without a doctor's
recommendation (e.g., before a trip) can receive the
vaccination, but must pay for it themselves.
What applies to persons at high-risk?
As a vulnerable person, you may receive a vaccination
after individual diagnosis with your primary care
doctor.
A vaccination recommended by your doctor is free
of charge for you and is covered by health insurance [Grundversicherung].
And thus we're
arriving at the heart of the matter: what about liability?
Switzerland Holds Doctors Liable for Adverse Events
Covid-19
vaccination is subject to conventional liability rules
as other medicinal products or vaccines. In case of
vaccine damage, the vaccine manufacturer (product
liability), the vaccinating agency (contract liability
or state liability), and, subsidiarily, the federal
government are liable.
Well, it's good
to learn that the Swiss are thinking about this also in
terms of clarification.
Moreover, further particulars are
revealing:
Compensation
for vaccination damage by the Swiss Confederation is
only possible in the case of vaccinations that were
recommended or ordered by the authorities.
Compensation,
however, may only be granted by the Swiss Confederation
if the damage is not covered elsewhere ('subsidiary
liability').
This means that a vaccine-injured person is only
entitled to compensation if the damage has not already
been covered, for example, by the vaccine manufacturer
(product liability), the medical doctor administering
vaccination (medical liability) or an insurance company
(social or private insurance).
Possible compensation by the Swiss Confederation thus
aims to mitigate the consequences for affected persons
if third parties (e.g., the vaccine-administering doctor
or the manufacturer) are not liable.
Any such
compensation application to the Swiss Confederation is
examined in each individual case. [i.e., good luck
proving jab damage]
Bottom Lines
Well, in the absence of a clear reckoning (Aufarbeitung) by
the judicial system, this is about as good as it gets.
While I suspect the information provided on various issues,
including fertility - Swiss authorities claim that modRNA
injection 'has no bearing on fertility' - will change more
often (and quietly) in the future, at least we learn of one
possible way 'forward' with respect to these products:
The Swiss call it 'subsidiary liability', by which is meant
that there is a staggered chain of responsibility, with 'the
state' only looking at your claim as a matter of last
resort.
As we learned last summer in Austria (see here), as
governments entered into onerous - frivolous - contracts
with
Big Pharma absolving the latter from all liability,
politicians don't want to be the ones holding that
particular bag.
Hence, the de facto codification of these liability rules:
if the state shields Big Pharma from liability and doesn't
want to assume that responsibility itself, the weakest link
is: the doctors.
It is highly unlikely that Swiss doctors will continue
injecting their countrymen, if only for the combination of
the following three reasons:
-
No general
recommendation means the state absolves itself from even
the possibility of taking any kind of responsibility
-
Since Big
Pharma cannot be taken to court (as of now), both the
gov't and Big Pharma will throw the doctors under the
bus; given Switzerland's private healthcare industry,
this means that primary care physicians will also be
left in the cold by insurance corporations
-
Finally,
those who still wish to 'get vaccinated' will have to
pay for the jabs themselves, which further decreases the
willingness to do so, to say nothing about the doctors
who now know that it is them who will be liable for any
damage
All told, a kind
of 'silver lining', and while I think that the second point
- the impossibility of taking Big Pharma to court - will
change at some point in the future, this is about as good as
it gets.
After breaking just about any law on the books by 'rescuing'
Credit Suisse two weeks ago, the Swiss authorities are
providing clear(er) indications about vaxx damages.
Still, let's not let our guard down:
If a wave of infection were to emerge in spring/summer 2023,
the vaccination recommendation would be adjusted.
