Letter from European Medicines Agency: CLICK TO DOWNLOAD LETTER 2023-10-18 Letter to MEP Marcel de Graaff – Request for the direct suspension of marketing authorizations
Lawyer Maria-Louise Genet says in response to EMA’s letter:
What they have actually done is 5.5 pages of repetition of what we said… and only 1 page of response.
There are 2 crucial points: I have therefore highlighted them in yellow and the explanation below is in “normal Dutch”:
1. The injections were never allowed for transmission control, so the lie has been going on all this time with the slogan “you do it for someone else”. So off label use, which means informed consent is always required (didn’t happen).
2. The package leaflets are not up to the legal standards that are required so …
Both are valid reasons for immediate suspension. The only logical conclusion to conclude with: we are going to adjourn.
However, EMA does not do that (see page 7), so this also shows that the EMA is bankrupt. Totally corrupt.
3. Newspaper article after the press release: https://indepen.eu/ernstige-bedenkingen-bij-boosters-pfizer-eu-leden-komen-nu-in-actie/
Serious concerns about Pfizer boosters, EU members are now taking action.
If glass shards are found in a jar of baby food in the Netherlands, the turnips are considered cooked for the producer. The Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority immediately intervenes, in such a case production is stopped and all jars from the relevant production series are removed from the shelves. And a good thing too, prevention is better than cure after all.
If serious issues are discovered with medicines or vaccines, this authority is called the MEB (Medicines Evaluation Board). This authority must also intervene immediately as soon as imperfections or previously unknown and serious side effects are discovered. The rules for the MEB are clear and contained in all kinds of rules and are even anchored in the Dutch Medicines Act (Article 51).
The matter is slightly more complex for all vaccines purchased by the European Commission. The supervisory authority is officially the MEB, but the process for granting the European marketing authorization lies with the European Commission, after the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a positive advice on this. If it turns out that something is wrong with the marketing authorization, it is of course also up to the European Commission, after advice from the EMA, to withdraw, amend or suspend the marketing authorization. However, this does not alter the fact that a national authority (in this case the MEB) has the power to immediately suspend the authorization to protect public health at the time when urgent action is required to protect public health (Article 31, paragraph 3 of the EU-Regulation).
There are serious concerns about Pfizer’s boosters in two areas.
Part of the so-called ‘informed consent’, which means that a doctor must (and has) been able to sufficiently inform his or her patients, is the package leaflet that accompanies the medicine or vaccine. In the case of Pfizer, the package leaflet has grown from a document of approximately 30 pages in the early days to a document of more than 500 pages, which includes both the ‘old’ vaccines and the booster. Has every doctor read this and informed every patient about it? Most likely not, doctors who asked for ‘informed consent’ from their patients were even prosecuted by the IGJ (Healthcare and Youth Inspectorate). Do the package leaflets now mention serious side effects? In addition to the now well-known side effect myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), which can lead to death, there are various other side effects that can lead to death. Has your GP warned you about this? No, most likely not. The MEB should have intervened on the basis of its own responsibility and the Medicines Act (Article 51), but has not and has not done so so far, something it did do after much insistence with the AstraZeneca vaccine, but not until ‘the last rubbish’ had also been removed, as Woo research has shown.
Some Members of the European Parliament have now also realized the need for EMA intervention and have written a letter. A press conference about this letter was held on Wednesday, October 11, 2023. The EMA recently responded to the MEPs’ demand letter, and the response also reveals other very questionable and shocking facts related to the way the vaccine was marketed.
What exactly the EMA reveals in its letter will only become clear in a second press conference in the European Parliament to be held tomorrow, November 21, 2023, at 3 p.m. in Strasbourg.
It remains strange that an error in a food product sets off all the alarm bells and the media responds en masse to this, while with a vaccine, which is now known to have caused several deaths, there appears to be no need to remove the product from the market. get trade?
4. Second newspaper article: https://indepen.eu/europees-geneesmiddelenbureau-legt-bom-onder-vaccinatiecampagne/
European Medicines Agency bombs vaccination campaign
In a letter to a group of MEPs, the medicines watchdog European Medicines Agency (EMA) acknowledges that the corona vaccines were not intended at all for ‘herd immunity’ or ‘stopping the spread of the coronavirus’. They are approved for personal immunization only.
That is an explosive statement, which puts a bomb under the corona admission ticket, mandatory vaccination and the propaganda campaigns of politicians such as Hugo de Jonge, who always emphasized that you should also get vaccinated because you are doing something ‘for the other’, vulnerable people in one’s own environment.
The EMA’s response is addressed, among others, to Marcel de Graaff, MEP on behalf of Forum for Democracy. He has been at it for some time: “You are indeed correct to point out that COVID-19 vaccines have not been authorized for preventing transmission from one person to another. The indications are for protecting the inoculated individuals only.”
It is a rather bizarre position of the EMA that a vaccine is not intended to achieve herd immunity. This goal has been the raison d’être of vaccination campaigns for about a hundred years. Normally, vaccines that do not protect against transmission and are therefore ‘leaky’, such as the corona vaccine, are not used in mass vaccination campaigns. Instead, only the target group that is vulnerable to a disease is vaccinated, as is done with the annual flu shot.
After lies in, among other things, the AD from manufacturer Pfizer about ‘100 percent effectiveness against transmission’, the House of Representatives has supported the plans for the corona admission ticket. The claims about the proper functioning of the vaccine were the deciding factor for many doubting MPs. It now appears that they were deceived.
Pharmaceutical advertising that makes incorrect claims is prosecuted very strictly by regulators throughout Europe. However, politicians who have told gossip about the vaccines, and academics such as Marc van Ranst full of pharmaceutical interests, cannot be prosecuted because the corona vaccinations involved a mass vaccination, which took place under the banner of public health. Then the advertising rules do not apply.
However, the letter that the MEPs now have raises the question of whether this injection campaign should have been rolled out under the banner of general public health. De Graaff doesn’t think so: “This should only have been offered to individuals for whom a doctor estimated in advance that they would be vulnerable to serious COVID-19. For example, this has almost never been the case with people under the age of 60.”