Prof. MUDr. Vlastimil Válek, CSc., MBA, EBIR Minister of Health of the Czech Republic
Ministry of Health
Prague
16 May 2022
***
Subject:
Qualified notice of the Government's obligation to provide clear and scientifically sound arguments and full information on any potential action on covid
Qualified notice of the adjacent facts of possible criminal offences
Dear Minister,
Having noted the public's deliberations (and presumably verbal psychological preparation) in these days of May for the steps that may come in the autumn in relation to the wave of covid disease you have predicted), may I respectfully draw your attention in this qualified form to several important circumstances for which you and the Government should again prepare.
I am led to do so by the civil and legal experience of the last two years, when there have been repeated misinformation, misleading information, false information (e.g. "Whoever has completed vaccination will not get sick and will not infect anyone else") and strange developments in time, when what was claimed at the beginning was not true a few weeks later, or when expert capacities argued live about important circumstances affecting everyone's health (State Institute for Drug Control (SÚKL) 2021: "The impact of vaccination with Comirnata vaccine on the community spread of SARS-CoV-2 is not yet known"). This situation has more or less continued to date.
Status today:
It is not clear why contracts were signed for the supply of such a huge quantity of vaccines at a given time and for a given amount of money, and what was the basis for this signing in technical terms.
We have no further credible information about the vaccines beyond the claims of the pharmaceutical companies; that this information was not even there at the time of the initial delivery is evidenced by the statements of the Minister at the time.
There is no clear scientific study on the positive effects of vaccines and no study on the negative effects of vaccines. There is no study that has led to the conclusion that blanket vaccination of absolutely everyone is possible without any prior medical consultation or examination of the individual.
There is no serious research based on the negative effects of vaccination on the human body.
Many of the texts on vaccines are not in the Czech language, a large part of the texts of the annexes to the contracts are not public (the text is hidden).
Claims about who is a risk group, that pregnant women and young children can be vaccinated, that those who have had a covid disease should be vaccinated, are not supported by any scientific basis; in other words, statements about who should be vaccinated "for sure", that vaccination will again be "necessary" (even the term "third dose" has been abandoned, and the term "repeated" and even annual dose is used) are only political, opinionated, but not scientifically based. Among other things, they demonstrate that information about vaccines changes over time "as it suits", i.e. more commercial than scientific. Despite the fact that we know almost nothing about the vaccine, we do not at the same time systematically gather information over time to learn what is essential about its effects; that is, there is no serious research and data collection going on in our area regarding the vaccine, or we do not know about it.
There was no consideration of the fact that medical care was completely neglected for the first period, and everything was focused on vaccination only, which may have had an impact on the effects of the covid disease.
The government has behaved and is behaving more like a salesman for the pharmaceutical companies, ordering vaccines in quantities that are clearly not needed and will be wasted funds; there is also much debate about the quality of the vaccines and only additional 'testing' over time.
The effectiveness or harmfulness of the masks (preventing breathing) is also not substantiated in any serious way. The veil propaganda, which nowadays has absurd consequences, such as the veiling of a person in a closed car or in nature, where the veil has become a symbol of submission, should be definitively stopped. The current study on balaclavas focusing on CO2 measurements, the largest of such studies so far, is all telling. Even though the measurements were taken for only 5 minutes on healthy people and at rest, the CO2 levels under masks (mainly respirators) were exceeded many times over. For respirators, so much so that it exceeded the allowed standards.
There are no statistics to back up government claims like "vaccinated people can't have a worse course and not die". There are no statistics to support the claim that the vaccinated are more protected. There are no credible findings on whether covid vaccines can have a negative effect on, for example, the treatment of other diseases, or on human health in general. Whether the natural immunity acquired by contracting a disease can be impaired by 'artificial' vaccination is not investigated.
An overview of the health status of the incoming refugees, numbering several hundred thousand, is not being produced.
And so I could go on. There are hundreds of unanswered questions, and people are motivated in only one direction - to be vaccinated, and thus to take rapidly developed vaccines on a massive scale; their mass application, even in shopping centres as a purchase of a commodity, is highly questionable. Moreover, over the course of two years, vaccines have been claimed to be something else, which testifies to their developmental unpreparedness - from saying that one dose would be enough, then two, then three, nowadays there is the notion of repeatedly or annually, and from claiming that vaccination will prevent 'everything' to 'merely' preventing severe disease, and not always, moreover, however unsubstantiated. Not in the history of medicine has there been such a mass experiment on human beings, moreover by way of "blackmail" through the violation of their constitutional rights.
And currently, despite all this, all the efforts of the government are once again directed towards vaccination, i.e. once again towards the highest possible consumption of vaccines, of which there are millions in stock.
Therefore, I reasonably expect the government to publish the following without undue delay:
How many vaccines it has in its warehouses, from which manufacturer, from what date and of what quality these vaccines are (what is their current expiry date and how many times have they been extended) and the financial value of these vaccines.
Will this explain your ministry's response in January of this year when asked "Who specifically has extended the expiration dates set by vaccine manufacturers?" the answer was "The expiry dates were extended by a decision of the Ministry of Health following a decision of the European Medicines Agency. This is a standard process where vaccines have shown longer stability over time than originally anticipated. The EMA has agreed to a change in the Annex to the Marketing Authorisation Decision - Summary of Product Characteristics where a new expiry date has been set. As the decision to amend the marketing authorisation (extension of the expiry date) does not automatically apply to batches already released into circulation, the EMA recommended to the national authorities (NMAs) that appropriate measures be taken at national level to extend the expiry date of batches already supplied to comply with the marketing authorisation decision (and therefore the new longer expiry date). The decisions are formally issued by the MoH on the basis of the NMA recommendations and are available on the MoH's official notice board'.
The question to be answered is on the basis of what scientific investigation the vaccines have shown to be stable for a longer period of time and to make this scientific investigation public. The Ministry undoubtedly has it, because, as the answer below shows, the Czech authorities are responsible for the decision, which, although the text somewhat hides behind the term "formally", means that the EMA recommended the "national authorities" to formally approve the extension, i.e. legally it means to take responsibility for the extension (therefore I assume that there is a clear basis on which the Czech authority" did so). Then I also assume an explanation as to why the EMA did not recommend the "national authorities" to approve the vaccines themselves at one time, when the extension of the expiry date is instead their responsibility.
I consider it necessary to clarify these issues in order to clarify once and for all the relationship between the EMA and the 'national authorities' and accountability. I have reached these conclusions by interpreting the available information, and I may be wrong. But if I am not, the Ministry should take heed and ask the same questions.
Will it publish all the vaccine-related documents (including the treaties and their annexes) in English translation and in full, and how the national authorities felt about them, or why they were not asked for their views.
They will present scientifically based arguments for the wearing of masks, their positive impact and the exclusion of negative impact towards CO2. If he does not have them, I assume that there will never be a regulation of the wearing of masks except for the hitherto standard use in the medical profession.
They will present scientifically based arguments on the harmlessness of administering vaccines to children, the sick and the pregnant, which would be explicitly and on the basis of scientifically based arguments shared by our national authorities.
Present the actual scientific findings and observations after two years of illness and vaccination on which they base their reasoning and with which our authorities agree (side-effect analyses, morbidity, mortality....); or state why no such evidence has been produced to date.
They will tell the public what research is being carried out on vaccination and what the results are, particularly on the side-effects of vaccination and the subsequent illnesses and their course in those who have been vaccinated. If none are being carried out, this information and the reason for the inaction shall also be provided.
It will tell citizens whether there will be a legal review or liability for signing contracts for the supply of vaccines in the numbers and at the prices given in the conditions given and, if not, why liability will not be incurred.
It will inform citizens whether the quality of vaccines has been reviewed, i.e. whether the vaccines supplied are of the quality specified in the contract, or whether the vaccines are of the quality specified in the contract. If it was not, where did the government politicians of the time get their information about the quality and characteristics of the vaccines (I assume that since they were making such a massive appeal for their use, they must have had information about quality, and if they did not, then their push for vaccination is incomprehensible) and where does the current government get this information from when it recommends vaccines; and if the vaccines do not have the claimed quality, is it not appropriate to withdraw from the contracts. Thus, I expect that there has been a review of the contractual arrangements in their entirety, and that the report of the government's legal capacity will also be made public to that effect.
How early medical care is provided to prevent the disease, particularly the pneumonia that often accompanies the disease, and whether liability has been incurred for neglect of this care in the first year of the disease, or whether these issues have been examined at all.
How was the issue of covida investigated in newly arrived refugees and, if it was not investigated, for what reason did the national health authorities consider it unnecessary. I assume that care has been taken, and it can be disclosed how many of the refugees have been vaccinated, with what vaccines, in what numbers, whether they have had covidu disease, whether other diseases, etc. If this has not been investigated, for what reason, and how the safety of Czech citizens has been ensured.
What responsibility was held against the expert drafters of the law measures struck down by the court, whether there were personnel changes, or whether the same people would prepare the new measures.
As the legal community, we also expect a clear statement and proper accountability for the vaccine supply contracts concluded in the past, which are still being taken out under those contracts, and that any government action, even if minimal, which would mean any restriction of citizens' rights would be backed up by clear scientific evidence to justify the measures.
In view of the uncertainty surrounding the extension of the expiry date in the context of the otherwise automatic collection of vaccines, we ask for clarity of responsibility between the European authorities and our national institutions (see the high and sudden confusion on the issue of the extension of the expiry date of vaccines), and a clear statement from the government to the effect that any government action will no longer violate the constitutional and other rights of the citizens of this country, which will be legally guaranteed by clear authorities.
We expect that no action will ever again be ordered according to the personal opinion of the government or a minister, without further substantiation, but according to clear scientifically based facts that are shared by the medical community as a whole, not just a select medical community that supports the government's views.
We expect that the citizens of our country, not the pharmaceutical companies, will be given priority in the motivation of the government; and this includes the issue of publishing everything from the last two years as specified above. The people have a right to know the truth, and those responsible must be held accountable for their failures in office.
What I am saying is that any measure or restriction that you wish to introduce, and which you are clearly already preparing the citizens for, will be subject to substantial and rigorous legal and medical opposition, and it will therefore undoubtedly be better if you also prepare for the situation that you are predicting in the autumn.
You can start immediately by publishing and clarifying everything that is stated in this letter, and that the Czech citizens deserve to know and be aware of, if they are asked to tolerate or comply with anything again.
With regard to the review of the contracts concluded and the expenditure made under them, I draw your attention to this offence:
- § Section 220 Breach of duty in the management of other people's property
(1) Whoever violates a duty imposed on him by law or assumed by contract to take care of or manage someone else's property and thereby causes damage to another that is not small shall be punished by imprisonment for up to two years or by prohibition of activity.
(2) The offender shall be punished by imprisonment for six months to five years or by a fine,
(a) if he commits the act referred to in paragraph (1) as a person who has a special duty to defend the interests of the victim, or
(b) if he causes substantial damage by such an act.
(3) The offender shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two to eight years if, by the act referred to in paragraph (1), he or she causes damage on a large scale.
- § 221Breach of duty in the management of someone else's property due to negligence
(1) Whoever, through gross negligence, violates an important duty imposed on him by law or contractually assumed in the custody or management of someone else's property and thereby causes significant damage to another, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to six months or by prohibition of activity.
(2) The offender shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years,
- a) if he commits the act referred to in paragraph 1 as a person who has a special duty to defend the interests of the victim, or
(b) if by such an act he causes damage on a large scale.
This offence may also be committed by a person who, in disregard of a warning about possible deficiencies in the content of the current contract, continues to make large payments under it.
- § Section 329 Abuse of official authority
(1) An official who, with the intention of causing damage or other serious harm to another or of obtaining an unjustified benefit for himself or another¨
(a) exercises his or her authority in a manner contrary to any other provision of law,
(b) exceeds his or her powers, or
(c) fails to perform a duty arising from its powers,
shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of one to five years or to prohibition of activities.
(2) The offender shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of three years to ten years,
(a) if, by the act referred to in paragraph 1, he or she obtains a substantial benefit for himself or herself or for another,
(b) if he commits such an act against another because of his actual or perceived race, membership of an ethnic group, nationality, political opinion, religion or because he is actually or perceived to be without religion,
(c) if, by such an act, he or she causes a serious disruption in the functioning of a state administration, local government, court or other public authority,
(d) if, by such an act, he causes a serious disruption in the activities of a legal or natural person who is an entrepreneur,
(e) if he or she commits such an act taking advantage of the defencelessness, dependence, distress, weakness of mind or inexperience of another, or
(f) if he causes substantial damage by such an act.
(3) The offender shall be liable to imprisonment for five to twelve years or forfeiture of property,
(a) if, by the act referred to in paragraph (1), he or she obtains for himself or herself or for another a benefit of a large amount, or
(b) if by such an act he causes damage on a large scale.
Here, a situation may arise where, despite being warned of possible deficiencies in a contract (e.g. for the supply of vaccines), the contract continues to be performed, great material benefit is caused to another and damage is caused to the State, and it is subsequently realised that the matter really should have been reconsidered; criminal liability may then be incurred.
- § 357 Dissemination of an alarm report
(1) Whoever intentionally causes danger of serious alarm to at least part of the population of a place by spreading an alarm message which is false, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to two years or by prohibition of activity.
Here, liability may be called for statements such as severe illness, death, serious danger without vaccination, etc., in situations where the author of the statement is unable to substantiate this with evidence. I would urge caution in your personal statements such as "Get vaccinated as soon as possible. So that you don't have a serious course and die", when you undoubtedly cannot provide evidence for this statement.
Furthermore, we have a criminal offence in our legal system
- § Section 181 Damage to the rights of others
(1) Whoever causes serious injury to the rights of another by
(a) misleads someone else, or
(b) takes advantage of someone else's mistake,
shall be punished by imprisonment for up to two years or by prohibition of activity.
(2) The offender shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years,
(a) if, by the act referred to in paragraph 1, he or she causes significant harm to the rights of another,
(b) if by such an act he obtains for himself or for another a substantial benefit, or
(c) if he or she impersonates an official person in such an act.
(3) The offender shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of six months to five years,
(a) if, by an act referred to in paragraph (1), he or she causes to another person damage to his or her rights on a large scale, or
(b) if by such an act he obtains for himself or for another a benefit of a large amount.
Thus, for example, claiming that wearing a face shield or respirator does no harm when research would show otherwise (one is currently available), or pressing for vaccinations when it would subsequently be shown that vaccines do not have the properties in question, could undoubtedly fall under this offence, and it is good to know.
Dear Minister,
I therefore agree with you that we need to prepare for the autumn, except that I see the focus of this preparation on the part of the Government, and I see it now.
The government must prepare answers to dozens of questions, some of which I have described in this letter to help it identify them, and until they are answered it cannot even think of ordering, forbidding or in any way restricting people's rights again. There is a lot of unknown surrounding the covid.
If the government does so, and does announce any restrictions, it must be prepared for rigorous professional opposition, and if necessary legal defence by highly skilled existing legal-medical teams, and I would just remind you that the legal and medical community would be aided today by the nearly fifty judgments of our highest courts that have repeatedly given them the benefit of the doubt.
So the legal-medical community is very far away, while the government has not advanced a millimetre in clarifying the nature of what is happening around covid, beyond declarations and considerations and promises.
It would therefore be a good idea, before any reflection on the autumn, to clarify the events of the last two years and the current factual situation in which we find ourselves, including the presentation of the scientific findings - or to admit that we simply do not have them, and the events surrounding vaccines are the biggest experiment in the history of medicine directly on humans. As I mentioned at the same time, I would not underestimate the question of responsibility for the contracts signed by your predecessors, lest responsibility for inaction fall on you in the end. (Here I would remind you of the Prague Opencard case, where it was not the creators of the project who were prosecuted in the end, but its successors.)
So - in preparation for the autumn, before any talk of what can and cannot be, start by first clarifying what has been described. Not only the legal and medical community, but all citizens, rightfully expect this from you.
They have been misled, their rights have been repeatedly violated, and it is the Czech Republic that has bled and is bleeding financially from unfavourable contracts. This cannot be passed over in silence, and certainly not by further measures in the autumn, as if nothing had happened, especially if, as has become customary, they are not backed up in any way. Claiming something and proving something are two very different things.
So you need to be prepared for every claim you make to be met with a demand - we demand proof. Prepare for that. People already deserve the truth. And with all due respect to you, I'm afraid you don't know it yet either.
Mgr. Jana Zwyrtek Hamplová
citizen of the Czech Republic
Attorney at Law
member of the Healthy Forum group
member of the Pro Libertate association
Read more...