Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! | ||
|
|
||
State Promises and Bitter Reality: When People Harmed by COVID Vaccines Are Left AloneDuring the COVID pandemic, a remarkably simple standard applied: a single test was enough to classify a person as “infected.” On this basis, far-reaching intrusions into fundamental rights were justified—quickly, decisively, and without lengthy evidentiary procedures. The state acted with a clarity that left no room for doubt. 
Today, Suddenly Every Doubt Counts—Against Those AffectedToday, a completely different picture emerges. Anyone seeking to claim health damage after a vaccination faces a system that functions in a fundamentally different way: slow, complex, and distrustful toward those affected.At the time, however, the political message was clear. It was repeatedly conveyed that the state would stand behind people in the event of side effects. This promise was meant to build trust—and it worked. Many people made their decision in the belief that they would be protected in a worst-case scenario. Critical voices, however, warned early on that this very promise would have a decisive weakness: while the state would formally assume liability, the actual enforcement of claims would be structured in such a way that it would be barely attainable for many affected individuals. “Plausible” – Progress or an Admission of Failure?A recent article on the website of the Basisdemokratische Partei Deutschland addresses precisely this point and refers to a ruling by the Federal Court of Justice. While it is seen as easing the burden for those affected, it is also indicative of the underlying problem. It states:“Going forward … it is sufficient that a connection between vaccination and health damage appears plausible.”What initially sounds like progress, on closer inspection mainly reveals how high the hurdles have been up to now. If even the recognition of “plausibility” is considered a breakthrough, it says more about the starting point than about the progress itself. Because this plausibility does not appear out of thin air. It must be established—through medical expert reports, documentation, and legal disputes, often over many years. The contrast to the pandemic period could hardly be more striking. Back then, a single test was enough to legitimize far-reaching measures. Today, those affected must provide near-scientific proof just to be considered at all. Data in the Dark – Truth with DelayThis picture becomes even more problematic when looking at the handling of data and information. The Paul Ehrlich Institute collects reports on side effects and publishes safety reports—but often aggregated over long periods. As a result, insights do not emerge in real time, but with considerable delay.At the same time, hundreds of thousands of suspected cases were reported without automatically resulting in transparency or easy accessibility for those affected. What was presented during the pandemic as a solid basis for decision-making often appears, in retrospect, incomplete or processed too late. Files Only Upon Request – Transparency Against ResistanceIn addition, there is a structural problem that strikes at the core of the criticism: much information has to be fought for. Data, assessments, and internal evaluations are indeed held by authorities, but are not necessarily made openly accessible. Initiatives such as FragDenStaat repeatedly show that such information often only comes to light through formal requests or legal action.This very pattern is also reflected in the mentioned ruling. While it facilitates access to certain information, it simultaneously confirms that such access was by no means a given before. Those who are harmed must therefore not only deal with the health consequences, but also battle bureaucratic and legal hurdles just to establish a basis for their claims. This creates a cycle: without data, no evidence; without evidence, no recognition. And without recognition, no compensation. Two Standards, One Breach of TrustThe key point here is less legal than political. During the pandemic, rapid decisions were made based on relatively simple criteria. In retrospect, however, the highest standards of proof and causality suddenly apply. It is this double standard that has fundamentally shaken trust.A Small Victory – A Major AdmissionThe Federal Court of Justice ruling may represent a small step forward. It shifts the hurdles slightly in favor of those affected. But at the same time, it highlights how difficult the path to that point actually is. In doing so, it indirectly confirms exactly what critics have long argued: the state assumes responsibility—but makes it difficult for those affected to actually enforce it.The Uncomfortable ConclusionIn the end, one uncomfortable question remains: what is a promise worth if fulfilling it is only possible through the greatest effort?Author: AI-Translation - АИИ | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Small Group, Important Message: Palestinian Woman at Peace Demonstration in Weißenfels on July 15, 2024The Failure of NATO as a "Peace Alliance" and the True Costs of Global Conflicts, Moving Words from a Young Palestinian Woman Reporting on the Stateless Existence and Often Forgott... zum Artikel |
 | 250 Mondays of Resistance – 5 Years of Vigil in front of the RKIFor five years, Oliver Herde has been standing tirelessly every Monday in front of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. For 250 Mondays, through heat, rain, snow, and wind, his vig... zum Artikel |
 | Hooray! Chancellor Merz saves us from the luxury of survival!What a historic moment! At last, we once again have a Chancellor who steers the destiny of our fatherland with an iron hand, a clear voice, and an unshakable gaze: Friedrich Merz, ... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |