Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! |
||
Injustice should remain injustice – Did the vaccination team bring death to care homes?Anyone who wasn’t completely asleep in recent months would have noticed the publication of the RKI protocols and other documents, and could see that all “containment measures” were without scientific basis and purely political decisions. 
That’s why on June 24, 2024, I submitted the following inquiry to the press office of the Burgenland district: Dear Sir or Madam, Among other things, the publication and analysis of the RKI protocols and the protocols of the Conference of Ministers-President during the Corona years show that all Corona measures were political decisions. This was also stated by the then Chancellor Merkel after a Ministers-President conference. Chancellor Scholz said in a summer interview that he did not understand why people were not allowed to walk alone. At that time, he was Vice Chancellor and his current statement contradicts his former opinion. The RKI subordinated itself to the will of politics and provided justifications for what politics wanted. Masks, school closures, mask mandates in schools and other areas, lockdowns, and curfews had no effect or had harmful consequences. The RKI could find no evidence of the benefit of FFP2 masks. For surgical masks, it cannot be any different. The vaccination rate was to be increased because too much vaccine had been ordered. Alleged protective effects of the vaccinations were unclear. Side effects were downplayed. Question: Does the Burgenland district, in view of the information already known, consider rehabilitating people who were sanctioned due to the disregard of containment measures, mask mandates, institution-related vaccination obligations, etc., in such a way that at least the imposed fines (according to media reports over 50,000 euros) plus incurred expenses are repaid to the affected persons and the underlying decisions are retroactively revoked (see e.g. §48 VwVfG), since these fines lacked scientific and legal basis, were therefore unfounded, and consequently must be regarded as unlawful and arbitrary? If yes, when and will the administration do this independently or do the affected have to submit a corresponding application first? If no, why not? There was no response from the Burgenland district. Nothing! ¡Nada! Nothing! Ничего! In the talk show “Illner,” the Prime Minister of Rhineland-Palatinate, Malu Dreyer, recently said: “No one really knew anything.” She had also imposed measures and the exclusion of the unvaccinated. The political circles are wriggling and dodging responsibility. One would think that if we lived in a state governed by law, this state and thus also the responsible politicians and administrations would have a strong interest in correcting injustice if it becomes obvious afterward that it was indeed injustice. But either we do not live in a state governed by law, or none of the responsible parties want to take responsibility. Naysayers would now ask why such politicians are still allowed to remain in office. Very harsh critics would say it is because these politicians can only prevent themselves from actually having to take responsibility that way—which could also mean criminal liability. At the very least, the offense of coercion applies, since people were pressured to submit to the measures and vaccination. This cost people their lives in the Burgenland district. Legal experts might want to discuss whether this constitutes aiding and/or abetting negligent homicide. Hefty fine for nursing serviceWe have documents showing that a nursing service had to pay a fine of 2,500 euros because it did not immediately report positive rapid tests in a care facility to the health department in mid-December 2021. The nursing service was reported to the health department by a general practitioner. A triple-vaccinated resident died on December 14, 2021, at the age of 88. A rapid test was positive. No PCR test was conducted. Subsequently, the health department initiated an inspection and spoke with employees of the nursing service, during which an employee suggested that the positive test might have been caused by the booster vaccination. Following this, the health department filed a complaint with the legal and regulatory office. The documents indicate that the health department feared that the nursing service was not taking the Corona issue seriously enough. The health department itself made recommendations/determinations to the nursing service (it is unclear what exactly was determined or recommended), including minimizing visitor traffic and switching from vinyl gloves to nitrile gloves. Protective goggles were to be used. Training on how to remove protective clothing was to be conducted. Staff clothing was to be rented, as it could not be ensured that the clothing was washed sufficiently. One might think the health department was panicking. In this complaint, the health department asked the legal and regulatory office to check whether, besides an administrative offense under § 73 paragraph 1 of the Infection Protection Act, a criminal offense under § 74 of the Infection Protection Act could also be present. (Note: § 73 paragraph 1 of the Infection Protection Act no longer existed at that time. It was repealed with the amendment of March 31, 2021. The health department apparently was unaware.) After feedback from the legal and regulatory office, the health department wanted to forward the matter to the public prosecutor for further investigation. Three weeks later, the legal and regulatory office informed the health department by email that criminal charges at the public prosecutor could only be filed by the legal and regulatory office. No criminal offense was seen as fulfilled. However, a violation of the reporting obligation under § 6 Infection Protection Act was seen as given and derived an administrative offense from it. The health department was to inform the legal and regulatory office how high the fine should be in their opinion. After internal consultation, the health department considered 2,500 euros appropriate. How the health department arrived at this amount and which basis of assessment was used is not clear from the documents. The legal and regulatory office sent a hearing letter to the nursing service. The nursing service had a lawyer inform the legal and regulatory office that it was assumed that positive rapid tests did not have to be reported and that positive PCR tests were reported to the health department by the general practitioner who performed these tests. Since the legal situation was constantly changing, they were not up to date or had not assessed the legal situation correctly. During the pandemic years, there were regulations upon regulations, constantly amended, causing confusion about what was valid when. The legal and regulatory office still upheld the fine because it saw negligence. The fine notice from the legal and regulatory office states: “It is incomprehensible why you assumed that a positive rapid test does not trigger a reporting obligation, as this is ultimately the only way to detect the disease, especially in asymptomatic cases, at all or in time. The rapid test indicates the presence of pathogens. A positive rapid test is therefore usually the surest indication of a disease.” Spelling and grammar mistakes are contained in the original text. Critics and harsh voices would argue that if someone has no symptoms, they are not ill. The presence of pathogens does not mean that a corresponding disease is present. But that would be a fundamental debate again—some say this, others say that. The legal and regulatory office accused the nursing service of an amateurish view of infectious diseases and violation of duties of care because they did not inform themselves about the reporting obligations, although these had supposedly existed for a year. In addition to the 2,500 euros, a further 125 euros in fees for the notice were added. Did the central vaccination team bring the virus into the care facility?The nursing service employees believe that the central vaccination team, which was in the facility on December 8, 2021—6 days before the resident died—and administered the booster, brought the virus into the care facility, or that the booster caused the positive tests. Two employees of the nursing service also received the booster that day. Until then, the facility had always tested negative. However, the employees of the nursing service cannot prove their suspicion and probably would not have been believed. After the 88-year-old, two other boosted patients in this shared living arrangement also died. This actually raises the suspicion that the booster vaccination itself may have been the problem. Give power to people who otherwise have nothing to say, and they will ruthlessly abuse itThat is the conclusion the nursing service draws regarding the health department. After this incident, positive tests were always reported immediately to the health department. However, the health department usually reacted only many days later, when the issue was already resolved and subsequent tests were negative. Two employees of the nursing service had severe muscle, head, and limb pain after the first vaccination. It felt like a severe flu. They felt really bad. They were on sick leave for up to three weeks and then refused to be vaccinated again. One colleague’s rapid tests were always negative, but the PCR tests were positive. The employee was asymptomatic. After 5 days, the test was negative again. The health department would not negotiate or listen, as it could not be, it was not allowed to be. The accusation from the health department was that the rapid tests had not been performed properly. It was a big “theater.” The nursing service employees could not stay home behind closed doors in a home office. They had to work continuously to care for the patients. As thanks, they got applause. Quote from the nursing service: “A joke, really!” The nursing service complied with the reporting obligation for employees when it came to the institution-related vaccination obligation. However, there was no response from the health department. It seemed like they were trying to wait it out. The employees were under great stress because it was unclear what would happen, especially as it was publicly discussed that not fully or unvaccinated employees might lose their jobs. What had to be done to the elderly through separation and visitation bans was, from the nursing service’s point of view, sick and insane. Applying for Corona bonuses meant a huge administrative effort. This time does not remain in good memory for the nursing service regarding cooperation with offices and authorities. The health department constantly applied pressure and played with fears. The nursing service had the impression that the health department felt very powerful and dominant. It was a terrible time and reminds them strongly of the current federal government. Possible conclusions?The health department did not know the legal situation itself. Spelling is not a priority at the legal and regulatory office. From this, it can be deduced that such notices were quickly cobbled together. If the principle of investigation already plays no big role, the texts should at least be error-free. The panic, whoever caused it, must have been great in the district administration. Small things were blown up into huge problems. The amount of the fine was probably chosen quite arbitrarily. On the other hand, there is obviously no interest so far on the part of the district administration and the district administrator to investigate such incidents. Meanwhile, there are countless “new scientific findings” that the science at the time was wrong or was ignored by politics. Politics wanted to push it all through. The fear level was to be kept high. The authorities were set on those less or not afraid at all. The measures were political decisions to push people into vaccination. There is hardly any doubt about this after the disclosure of the documents so far. For me, it was already obvious back then when I read that ten vaccine doses were ordered for every EU citizen. Those with common sense could not somehow recognize this. Only when it became clear that the vaccination missed the promised “protective effect” by far, but reports of side effects increased, was the “pandemic” slowly phased out. Less testing was done, incidence rates fell, consequently the measures were rolled back. A sudden cut would surely have caused too much surprise among the population. The constant double standardsIt is clear from the overall context that constant double standards were applied. If a nursing service failed to report positive rapid tests, enormous efforts were made to impose fines and even criminal offenses were considered. If people suffered health problems or even died from the vaccination, nobody cared. Investigations by the health department? Review of causes of death? Initiation of investigations by the public prosecutor? A reaction from the district? Or at least the hint of rehabilitation? Examination of negligence, carelessness or even responsibility if people had health problems or died after vaccination? What comes from the health department, from the district? Nothing! ¡Nada! Nothing! Ничего! Injustice is meant to remain injustice! Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | 05.07.2024 |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Brilliant Peace Plan: Ukraine Becomes the 17th Federal State of GermanySometimes you can’t see the forest for the trees. Politicians often experience the same. So it’s up to the citizens, the sovereign, to think along.... zum Artikel |
 | Cover-ups, Concealment, Downplaying: The Vaccine Data Scandal Surrounding the SafeVac App of the PEI (Paul-Ehrlich-Institut)!What was hidden in the dark for years is now being trivialized – is the “worthless” vaccine app concealing a scandal of historic proportions?... zum Artikel |
 | Public Secret Meeting of the Wastewater Association?Secrecy at the Naumburg Wastewater Association? A public assembly is scheduled for September 5, 2024—but no information is available on any official channels.... 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 |