https://truthcomestolight.com/uk-lawyers-serve-notices-of-liability-on-covid-vaccinators-who-administer-shots-without-obtaining-full-informed-consent/

Rebuttal letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for Covid Ethics, April 1, 2021 Doctors, scientists, lawyers and colleagues in allied disciplines can sign the open letter by sending their name, qualifications, areas of expertise and country of practice to: [email protected], with web verification (eg workplace or registration link, not for publication). Doctors for Covid Ethics Doctors for Covid Ethics Apr 1, 2021·9 min read

From Doctors for Covid Ethics Emer Cooke, Executive Director, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands April 1st, 2021 Ladies and Gentlemen, FOR THE URGENT PERSONAL ATTENTION OF: EMER COOKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY We acknowledge receipt of your March 23 reply to our letter dated February 28, seeking reassurance that foreseeable risks of gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines” had been ruled out in animal trials prior to human use. Our concerns arise from multiple lines of evidence, including that the SARS-CoV-2 “spike protein” is not a passive docking protein, but its production is likely to initiate blood coagulation via multiple mechanisms. Regrettably, your reply of March 23 is unconvincing and unacceptable. We are dismayed that you choose to respond to our request for crucially important information in a dismissive and unscientific manner. Such a cavalier approach to vaccine safety creates the unwelcome impression that the EMA is serving the interests of the very pharmaceutical companies whose products it is your pledged duty to evaluate. The evidence is clear that there are some serious adverse event risks & that a number of people, not at risk from SARS-CoV-2, have died following vaccination.

1. You concede that the “vaccines”, which are more accurately described as investigational gene-based agents, enter the bloodstream but you can obviously provide no quantitative data. In the absence of the latter, any scientific assessment you purport to have undertaken lacks foundation.
2. Your statement that non-clinical studies do not indicate any detectable uptake of the vaccines into endothelial cells lacks credibility. We demand to see the scientific evidence. If not available, it must be assumed that endothelial cells are targeted.
3. Auto-attack could not have been excluded in animals unless they had been immunologically primed beforehand. We demand evidence that such experiments had been performed. Similar experiments have been undertaken before with previous, unsuccessful candidate vaccines, and fatal, antibody-dependent enhancement of disease was observed.
4. We requested scientific evidence, not a vague description of what was purportedly seen in non-valid animal experiments. Your cursory mention of laboratory findings in humans is cynical. In view of the plausible connection between production of spike protein and the emergence of thromboembolic serious adverse events (SAEs), we demand to see the results of D-dimer determinations. As you are aware, D-dimer is a very good test as an aid to diagnose thrombosis. After delivery of our letter to you on March 1, events followed that debunk your response to our last three queries to an extent that can only be termed embarrassing. As we feared, severe and fatal coagulopathies occurred in young individuals following “vaccination”, leading 15 countries to suspend their AZ-“vaccination” program. An official investigation by the EMA into the cases of afflicted younger individuals followed, the results of which were announced by the WHO on March 17, 2021, stating: “At this time, WHO considers that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks and recommends that vaccinations continue.” What was this decision based upon? The WHO is not a competent body for formally evaluating drug safety. That is explicitly the role of the agency you lead. In your press release, you disclosed the following information to support your conclusion. You had scrutinized data on two mortally dangerous conditions that had followed within 14 days of “vaccination”: DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; and CSVT, cerebral sinus vein thrombosis. 5 DIC and 18 CSVT were on record, with a total death toll of 9. Most cases were <55 year-old individuals. 5 DIC and 12 CSVT were under 50 years of age. None were reported as having had serious pre-existing illness. You stated numbers that “normally” would be expected : DIC <1, CSVT 1.3. Consequently, for these very rare conditions, a link to vaccination could not entirely be dismissed. However, given that 20 million individuals had been “vaccinated”, the benefits were deemed to far outweigh the risks. But in fact, your Press Release rendered it glaringly apparent that the AZ-“vaccine” does have the potential to trigger intravascular coagulation, that the true risks far outweigh any theoretical benefits, and that any authority with the slightest sense of responsibility must suspend its further use.
5. Regard your incidence numbers for <50 year old individuals in the “vaccinated” versus “normal” population: CSVT : 12 versus 1.3. A 9-fold increase is beyond the range of coincidence. DIC : 5 versus <1. As we hope you know, DIC neveroccurs out of the blue in healthy individuals. The incidence should not be stated as <1 when in reality it is ZERO. ACCORDINGLY, THE DIC CASES REPRESENT CONCLUSIVEEVIDENCE THAT THE AZ-VACCINE ALONE CAN TRIGGER INTRAVASCULAR COAGULATION .
6. Assume that 10 million recipients of the “vaccine” were < 60 yrs and this was followed by 9 deaths due to DIC and SVCT. The death toll upon 60 million “vaccinations” would be extrapolatable to 54. The pandemic hit around 60 million individuals < 60 yrs in Germany. During the first 6 months it reportedly claimed 52 lives of individuals without pre-existing illness (https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Gesundheitsmonitoring/JoHM/2020/JoHM_Inhalt_20_S11.html) Because of the unreliability of PCR testing and because of the completely novel way that deaths ‘with covid19’ are determined, the value of 52 is an over-estimate of the real burden of disease, further weakening your already-inadequate claim for risk-benefit. How, then, can you declare that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks? We demand your reply supported by facts and figures that we will convey to the public.
7. Further considerations expose the truly frightful dimensions of your irresponsible assertion. CSVT, cerebral venous thrombosis, is always a life-threatening condition that demands immediate medical attention. The number of cases you conceded had occurred can represent just the tip of a huge iceberg. As you must know, the most common symptoms of CSVT are piercing headache, blurred vision, nausea and vomiting. In severe cases, stroke-like symptoms occur including impairment of speech, vision and hearing, body numbness, weakness , decreased alertness and loss of motoric control. Surely, you are not oblivious to the fact that countless individuals suffered from precisely such symptoms directly following “vaccinations” with all the experimental gene-based agents. Clot formation in deep leg veins can lead to lethal pulmonary embolisms. Surely you must know that peripheral venous thromboses have repeatedly been reported following “vaccinations” with all the experimental gene-based agents Microthromboses in the lung vasculature can lead to misdiagnosis of pneumonia. In combination with false-positive PCR (with high cycle thresholds), these will then be registered as COVID 19 cases. Surely you must know that this scenario has probably repeatedly taken place following “vaccinations” with all the experimental gene- based agents. In all events, extensive thrombi formation can lead to consumption of platelets and coagulation factors, resulting in hemorrhagic diathesis and bleeding at all possible locations. Surely you must know that profuse skin bleedings have repeatedly been observed following “vaccinations” with all the experimental gene-based agents. Given that there is a mechanistically plausible explanation for these thromboembolic adverse drug reactions (TE ADRs), namely that the gene-based products induce human cells to manufacture potentially pro-thrombotic spike protein, the reasoned & responsible assumption must now be that this may be a class effect. In other words, the dangers must be ruled out for all emergency-authorised gene-based vaccines, not merely the AZ product. We urge you to adopt this stance unless and until there is data providing high clinical confidence to the contrary. We are very willing to liaise with the Agency in order to help craft a focussed pharmacovigilance plan to accomplish this goal. With the above in mind, we hope you are aware that all thrombotic events can be rapidly diagnosed by measurement of D-Dimers in blood. And that good medical practice imperatively demands that attempts are undertaken to diagnose CSVT in any and every patient, young or old, presenting with the typical signs and symptoms following “vaccination”. Given the potential for adverse effects, potentially fatal ones, it is completely inappropriate and unacceptable that EMA permits these products, which hold only emergency use authorisations, to be administered to younger (<60y) people who are healthy, as they are at unmeasurable risks from SARS-CoV-2. Not to make this explicit is, in our view, a reckless stance to have taken in the first place and doubly so now. Of equal importance, you are bound by duty to investigate whether reasons exist for the waves of deaths that have occurred following “vaccination” of elderly residents in care and senior homes. Or are you asserting that dangers of “vaccine”-derived thrombotic events are limited to younger individuals? If not, restricting their use solely in one age group — as decided upon in Germany — equates with nothing less than monstrous, condoned genocide of the other. In closing, failure to inform “vaccine” recipients of the risks and negligible benefits outlined here represents serious violations of medical ethics and citizens’ medical rights. Those violations are especially grave as all the risks we describe can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination, and each intervening coronavirus exposure. This renders both repeated vaccination and common coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom — in the absence of “vaccination” — COVID-19 poses no substantive risk. Such is the real risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 “vaccines”. Either the EMA lacks the subject-matter expertise to appreciate the molecular science of this reality, or it lacks the medical ethics to act accordingly.

https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/emergency-use-investigational-drug-or-biologic#:~:text=Emergency%20use%20is%20defined%20as,21%20CFR%2056.102(d)%5D

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/notices-of-liability-for-covid-19-vaccine-harms-and-deaths-served-on-all-members-of-the-european-a1f81f57216f

Reply from the European Medicines Agency to Doctors for Covid Ethics, March 23, 2021 Doctors for Covid Ethics Doctors for Covid Ethics ·Mar 31, 2021

https://miro.medium.com/max/2100/1*aBFPXdyIrgcw-00kCCtzFg.png

https://miro.medium.com/max/2100/1*zBiFQ51o-79oMcgNizWk7w.png

https://miro.medium.com/max/2100/1*9IQS9r899zygQFhbpkBKfA.png

https://miro.medium.com/max/2100/1*6EitfGSTBiWHnzYEgW2T9A.png

https://miro.medium.com/max/2100/1*aEKhEwjJ5u9OzODB7iOcxA.png

https://www.bitchute.com/video/RVcI7oT6YaOp/

NOTICE OF LIABILITY (“NOL”) [NAME] April 20, 2021 This Notice of Liability has been SERVED to you personally. You may be held personally liable for harm and death caused by implementation of the proposal identified as REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable certificates on vaccination, testing and recovery to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (Digital Green Certificate), Brussels, 17.3.2021 COM(2021) 130 final 2021/0068 (COD), which is designed to coerce widespread acceptance of experimental vaccination. If you take further action supporting such implementation, and if you take no steps to mitigate your past actions supporting such implementation, you may be held personally liable for resulting harm and death. Attached as appendices and as integral parts of this Notice of Liability are the documents: Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency Regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns; Reply from the European Medicines Agency to Doctors for Covid Ethics; Doctors and Scientists Accuse Medical Regulator of Downplaying COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers; Rebuttal Letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for Covid Ethics; Doctors for Covid Ethics Signatories. Furthermore, you may be held personally responsible for supporting CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, defined as acts that are purposely committed as part of a widespread or systematic policy, directed against civilians, committed in furtherance of state policy. Please respond to this NOTICE OF LIABILITY within 14 days from the DATE OF SERVICE to: DOCTORS FOR COVID ETHICS

https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-legal-action-happening-have-hope-because-we-going-win/5761298

See prior post:

https://greatawakening.win/p/140w2Ozgyj/mass-formation-psychosis-is-stra/

PRESS RELEASE: Doctors and Scientists Accuse Medical Regulator of Downplaying COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers The European Medicines Agency is misleading citizens into medical experimentation, experts warn Doctors for Covid Ethics Doctors for Covid Ethics Apr 1, 2021·3 min read

April 1st 2021 Doctors and scientists from 25 countries have today issued a rebuttal letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), following the regulator’s dismissal of their earlier warnings regarding COVID-19 vaccine dangers from clotting and bleeding. Within days of the EMA receiving the group’s original letter on March 1st, outlining risks of blood disorders from COVID-19 vaccines, over a dozen countries suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine following deaths from clotting and bleeding, as the doctors had warned. On March 23rd, however, the EMA dismissed the group’s concerns as relating to “minor” and “rare” events, concluding that “a positive benefit-risk balance has been established.” The doctors and scientists have today hit back, accusing the EMA of misleading the public on the vaccines’ true risk-benefit profile. “Your reply of March 23 is unconvincing and unacceptable,” they wrote, noting that recorded cases of life-threatening cerebral venous thrombosis (CSVT) post-vaccination likely “represent just the tip of a huge iceberg”. Common reactions to vaccination, including headache, nausea, blurred vision and vomiting, they state, are symptoms of CSVT, and should be assessed as such, immediately. Clotting and bleeding after vaccination can also “be expected to increase with each re-vaccination, and each intervening coronavirus exposure” the group warned. Over time “this renders both repeated vaccination and common coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom — in the absence of ‘vaccination’ — COVID-19 poses no substantive risk. “Such is the real risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’. Either the EMA lacks the subject-matter expertise to appreciate the molecular science of this reality, or it lacks the medical ethics to act accordingly.” The group, Doctors for Covid Ethics, which includes professors of immunology and microbiology, described the EMA’s responses to their concerns as “unscientific”, “vague”, and lacking credibility. They have offered to liaise with the agency to mitigate against vaccination risks and ethics violations, including helping the EMA to “craft a focussed pharmacovigilance plan.” The group warned that continuing to administer inadequately tested gene-based COVID-19 vaccines represents dangerous medical experimentation, whose “true risks far outweigh any theoretical benefits”, reflecting “serious violations of medical ethics and citizens’ medical rights.” “Misleading populations into accepting investigational agents such as the gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, or coercing them through ‘vaccine passports’, constitutes clear and egregious violations of the Nuremberg Code”, they caution. The letter is addressed to Emer Cooke, Executive Director of the EMA, and was copied to the lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, Charles Michel, President of the Council of Europe, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission. Link to Doctors for Covid Ethics rebuttal letter to EMA (April 1st): https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/rebuttal-letter-to-european-medicines-agency-from-doctors-for-covid-ethics-april-1-2021-7d867f0121e Link to EMA letter to Doctors for Covid Ethics (March 23rd): https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/reply-from-the-european-medicines-agency-to-doctors-for-covid-ethics-march-23-2021-d6760984dd06 Doctors for Covid Ethics is a group of over 100 doctors and scientists from 25 countries. Web: https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drs4CovidEthics For comment contact Professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD: [email protected], or Associate Professor Michael Palmer MD:[email protected] Further resources Original Doctors for Covid Ethics letter to EMA (Delivered March 1st): https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595 Video statement (March 11th)by Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology and Former Chair, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene: https://lbry.tv/@Doctors4CovidEthics:d/Prof.-Sucharit-Bhakdi-statement-on-EMA-open-letter.ENG:0 Doctors, scientists, lawyers and colleagues in allied disciplines can sign the open letter by sending their name, qualifications, areas of expertise and country of practice to:[email protected], with web verification (eg workplace or registration link, not for publication). END

Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns Doctors, scientists, lawyers and colleagues in allied disciplines can sign the open letter by sending their name, qualifications, areas of expertise and country of practice to: [email protected], with web verification (eg workplace or registration link, not for publication). Doctors for Covid Ethics Doctors for Covid Ethics Mar 10, 2021·14 min read

Emer Cooke, Executive Director, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 28 February 2021 Dear Sirs/Mesdames, FOR THE URGENT PERSONAL ATTENTION OF: EMER COOKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY As physicians and scientists, we are supportive in principle of the use of new medical interventions which are appropriately developed and deployed, having obtained informed consent from the patient. This stance encompasses vaccines in the same way as therapeutics. We note that a wide range of side effects is being reported following vaccination of previously healthy younger individuals with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, there have been numerous media reports from around the world of care homes being struck by COVID-19 within days of vaccination of residents. While we recognise that these occurrences might, every one of them, have been unfortunate coincidences, we are concerned that there has been and there continues to be inadequate scrutiny of the possible causes of illness or death under these circumstances, and especially so in the absence of post-mortems examinations. In particular, we question whether cardinal issues regarding the safety of the vaccines were adequately addressed prior to their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). As a matter of great urgency, we herewith request that the EMA provide us with responses to the following issues:

1. Following intramuscular injection, it must be expected that the gene-based vaccines will reach the bloodstream and disseminate throughout the body [1]. We request evidence that this possibility was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
2. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that the vaccines will remain entrapped in the circulation and be taken up by endothelial cells. There is reason to assume that this will happen particularly at sites of slow blood flow, i.e. in small vessels and capillaries [2]. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
3. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that during expression of the vaccines’ nucleic acids, peptides derived from the spike protein will be presented via the MHC I — pathway at the luminal surface of the cells. Many healthy individuals have CD8-lymphocytes that recognize such peptides, which may be due to prior COVID infection, but also to cross-reactions with other types of Coronavirus [3; 4] [5]. We must assume that these lymphocytes will mount an attack on the respective cells. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
4. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that endothelial damage with subsequent triggering of blood coagulation via platelet activation will ensue at countless sites throughout the body. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
5. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that this will lead to a drop in platelet counts, appearance of D-dimers in the blood, and to myriad ischaemic lesions throughout the body including in the brain, spinal cord and heart. Bleeding disorders might occur in the wake of this novel type of DIC-syndrome including, amongst other possibilities, profuse bleedings and haemorrhagic stroke. We request evidence that all these possibilities were excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
6. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor on platelets, which results in their activation [6]. Thrombocytopenia has been reported in severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection [7]. Thrombocytopenia has also been reported in vaccinated individuals [8]. We request evidence that the potential danger of platelet activation that would also lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) was excluded with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
7. The sweeping across the globe of SARS-CoV-2 created a pandemic of illness associated with many deaths. However, by the time of consideration for approval of the vaccines, the health systems of most countries were no longer under imminent threat of being overwhelmed because a growing proportion of the world had already been infected and the worst of the pandemic had already abated. Consequently, we demand conclusive evidence that an actual emergency existed at the time of the EMA granting Conditional Marketing Authorisation to the manufacturers of all three vaccines, to justify their approval for use in humans by the EMA, purportedly because of such an emergency. Should all such evidence not be available, we demand that approval for use of the gene-based vaccines be withdrawn until all the above issues have been properly addressed by the exercise of due diligence by the EMA. There are serious concerns, including but not confined to those outlined above, that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, and that the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute “human experimentation”, which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code. In view of the urgency of the situation, we request that you reply to this email within seven days and address all our concerns substantively. Should you choose not to comply with this reasonable request, we will make this letter public. This email is copied to: Charles Michel, President of the Council of Europe Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission.