Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?

Hey everyone, I guess this is a good place to report that today I found this article by Dr. McCullough, in which he talks about the benefits of Bromelain in treating varicose veins. As discussed here, Bromelain is also part of the anti-Spike protein protocol, and it is now clear its anti-clotting properties help with other ailments. And in my case, after taking 500 mg daily for around 6 months I can attest that DEFINITELY works.

I have suffered from varicose veins since my early adulthood, and up to the point of developing venous ulcers, which have never receded until now!


Role of Bromelain and Vitamin C in Chronic Venous Disease​

Chronic venous disease with dilated leg veins and swelling is a curse for many patients as they get older. Because of the popularity of McCullough Protocol Base Spike Detoxification, many patients are now taking bromelain on a regular basis. This is derived from pineapple and is a family of enzymes that break down proteins and blood clots within the body. Vitamin C is well recognized as a necessary water soluble vitamin, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant. Because sluggish blood flow is invariably related to micro blood clots and inflammation in the legs, Buso et al set out the review the data on bromelain and vitamin C as two over the counter remedies for this common problem.
Click to expand...
 

European Court finds that doctors will be solely responsible for the consequences of covid injections because they were free to refuse to perform the injection​


According to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, all health professionals who pushed him to be vaccinated against Covid or vaccinated him are civilly and criminally liable. The case brought by Professor Frajese before the Court of Justice of the European Union had a surprising result! According to the Court, a doctor's prescription was necessary to administer the vaccines against Covid.
But there is more: doctors could have chosen to administer them or not and even advised against them, insofar as the possible civil and criminal liability of health professionals is attributable to the specific case.
Therefore, the grounds presented by the Court could call into question the disciplinary and criminal proceedings brought against physicians who opposed the vaccines and, on the contrary, attribute serious liabilities to physicians who vaccinated “without ifs and buts”, which also increases the risk of causing adverse effects.

https://buongiornosuedtirol.it/2025/02/19/esclusivo-vaccini-covid-la-corte-ue-serviva-la-prescrizione-e-il-medico-poteva-sconsigliarli/
Click to expand...

The Court had to confirm, even with a brief parenthesis, that the Commission's decisions to authorize marketing"does not imply any obligation for physicians to prescribe and administer such vaccines to their patients"
It reaffirmed the fundamental principle of the right to freedom of treatment and to choose the most appropriate, safe and effective treatment by the physician, in good faith and in full conscience, in the specific case and in the exclusive interest of the patient's health.
This passage is of extraordinary importance because it definitively dismantles the accusations that have been made, both in court and in disciplinary proceedings, against all physicians who have discouraged Covid from vaccinating their patients or have refused to promote it, thus restoring the physician's full freedom of care.
In addition, it confirms that there is a specific responsibility of the vaccinating physicians who administered the drug inversely without properly assessing the opportunity, risks and safety in the specific case of the treated patient.

More generally, the Court clarified that “If the grant of a marketing authorization for a vaccine constitutes a precondition for the right of its holder to market that vaccine in each Member State, such marketing authorization does not, in principle, imply any obligation on the part of patients or vaccinating doctors. It is clear from the annexes to the contested decisions that a medical prescription is required in order to administer the vaccines in question.”
This is what we have always asserted in appeals in support of the suspended workers, who had refused to be vaccinated, in particular due to the absence of specific medical prescription, although in many cases they themselves had requested it from their doctor. The prescription was never issued for any of the millions of doses administered, making all the above administrations contra legem (valid exemption for those who did not want to be vaccinated), with the legal consequences of the illegitimacy of the regulatory provisions imposing the obligation and the illegitimacy of the “medical act” of the specific administration.
Click to expand...
In short, the criminal shield only works if the medical treatment is administered according to the indications foreseen by the acts of authorization that in this case were ignored and not only because of the lack of a careful and adequate medical evaluation of each patient hesitating in the formal act of prescription.
"The time limits and the number of doses administered very often did not correspond to the indications in force at the time of the various administrations and this prevents the criminal shield from being operational.” The judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union are also binding on national judges.

“As noted above, the principles enunciated in this judgment cannot be ignored by national judges, but it is important that they be recalled in a correct and relevant manner. Much will depend on how the remedies that initiated the proceedings were brought and on the grounds and arguments put forward to support the illegitimacy of the measures adopted. It will probably be essential to have raised the issue of the violation of Community law and, therefore, to have highlighted the contrast between domestic law and European law. The CJEU reiterated in several passages of the judgment that doctors have the role of assessing in the specific case the administration or not of the Covid-19 vaccines, confirming the need for a prescription to that effect, so that the national rule that conflicts with these principles and, even more so, with the administration protocols contained in the authorization documents, reaches the limit of inapplicability as illegitimate.2
Click to expand...
“The Court's decisions may influence civil and criminal proceedings in order to obtain compensation for damages (biological, moral and patrimonial) caused to persons subjected to such pharmacological treatments, having been administered - by responsibility Faute doctors and doctors vaccinators.

- “in violation of the law” due to the absence of prior medical prescription (restrictive repeatable prescription, known as RRL). Wanting to explain it in terms understandable to those who are not in the sector, the criminal shield only works if the medical treatment is administered according to the indications provided by the acts of authorization that in this case were ignored and not only because of the lack of a careful and adequate medical evaluation of each patient hesitating in the formal act of prescription. “The time limits and the number of doses administered very often did not correspond to the indications in force at the time of the various administrations and this prevents the criminal shield from being operational.”
Click to expand...
A French analysis
-The judgment underlines that marketing authorizations do not impose any obligation on physicians to prescribe or administer vaccines. This freedom is crucial: a physician may, in conscience and on the basis of his experience, choose not to recommend Spikevax or Comirnaty to a patient, for example, in case of doubts as to their relevance or specific contraindications. The Court specifies that this decision does not engage their legal liability solely on the basis of the WMAs, as the latter do not impose anything directly on them. Thus, physicians retain significant leeway in their practice, in line with their ethical duty to protect the health of their patients.
Impact on physicians' liability
-The ruling clarifies that a physician's potential liability does not arise from marketing authorization decisions, but from the specific circumstances related to each patient's treatment. For example, if an adverse reaction occurs after the administration of a vaccine, the liability of Frajese or another physician would depend on his or her own act of prescribing or administering the vaccine, not on the mere existence of the vaccines on the market. The court insists that the EMA, not individual physicians, is responsible for checking the safety and efficacy of vaccines before they are licensed. This relieves practitioners of the obligation to independently assess the overall scientific data, limiting their role to clinical application as part of their relationship with the patient.
Click to expand...

In Europe, there is sufficient evidence to hold physicians responsible for vaccinations or genetic injections. But is it enough for the patient who has been vaccinated? It seems that it no longer matters whether or not the person got sick because of the vaccination, just as it does not matter the possible cause-effect relationship in the mRNA vaccine. To elaborate a legal-bureaucratic way is in my opinion “Kafkaesque”. The real culprits are those who hide behind those on the front line, doctors and nurses who are the ones who show their faces. And they are the same ones who create more regulations that give security to pharmaceutical companies to plan and facilitate the development of new vaccines.

CURIA - Documents

curia.europa.eu curia.europa.eu
pgibertie.com

La cour de justice européenne considère que les médecins seront les seuls responsables des conséquences des injections covid car ils étaient libre de refuser d’injecter

Selon la décision de la Cour de justice Européenne, tous les professionnels de santé qui vous ont poussé à la vaccination contre le Covid ou vous ont vacciné, sont civilement et pénalement responsa…
pgibertie.com pgibertie.com
www.buongiornosuedtirol.it

ESCLUSIVO. Vaccini Covid, la Corte UE: “Serviva la prescrizione e il medico poteva sconsigliarli”

La causa intentata dal professor Frajese dinnanzi alla Corte di Giustizia UE ha avuto un esito sorprendente. Non perché la richiesta di revoca dell’autorizza
www.buongiornosuedtirol.it www.buongiornosuedtirol.it
 
Liliea said:
The real culprits are those who hide behind those on the front line, doctors and nurses who are the ones who show their faces. And they are the same ones who create more regulations that give security to pharmaceutical companies to plan and facilitate the development of new vaccines.
Click to expand...
Very true. I'm glad judges found a potentially good solution to counteract the vaccination machine. It's a pity it might just compound the problem as it targets specifically every single doctor, who already are very scarce these days.

From a hyperdimensional point of view, going after doctors might be the next big thing to favor replacement with AI and to favor a deadly pandemic. And all the narratives can be turned against them, and it should definitely work when people are so hystericized and looking for someone to blame.

I'm nevertheless relieved about the turn of events, as it highlights personal responsibility. Hopefully, the Bobby Kennedy Junior effect will be seen in high European elite circles, where Corruption of Science reigns supreme, but I'm not holding my breath.
 

MEDICAL BOMBSHELL: FDA admits Covid mRNA ‘Vaccines’ CAUSE CANCER – NaturalNews.com

The natural health advocacy world and truth media followers around the globe cannot believe their eyes, as the FDA has just made the explosive admission that the mRNA clot shots are indeed spiked with contaminants that have triggered the global surge in cancers. One hard look (clinical study) at...
www.naturalnews.com

MEDICAL BOMBSHELL: FDA admits Covid mRNA ‘Vaccines’ CAUSE CANCER
03/15/2025

The natural health advocacy world and truth media followers around the globe cannot believe their eyes, as the FDA has just made the explosive admission that the mRNA clot shots are indeed spiked with contaminants that have triggered the global surge in cancers. One hard look (clinical study) at Pfizer’s Covid stabs and the FDA had to admit to the world that they contain dangerous levels of excess DNA contamination, and that these fragments are driving cancer cases through the roof. It’s called Turbo Cancer and people are experiencing stage 4 and stage 5 cancer out of the blue, shortly after they receive the deadly mRNA Pfizer China Flu jab.

Inside the FDA laboratory where leading scientists have discovered that billions of humans who have been mRNA injected could get cancer from the clot shots​

 
Kay Kim said:
Inside the FDA laboratory where leading scientists have discovered that billions of humans who have been mRNA injected could get cancer from the clot shots
Click to expand...
I think it is a bit of a click bait article as there is nowhere in the study where the FDA admits that billions of humans could get cancer due to the jab. Looking at the study, there is nothing to draw that conclusion. Yes, there is DNA contamination from 6-470 times the normal level.
From the study's discussion:
The authors reported that there appeared to be a correlation between the amount of DNA and the number of self-reported severe adverse events (SAE).
Click to expand...
That is a far cry from the FDA admitting to billions of people could get cancer due to the mRNA shot.
The sources for the above article:
Sources for this article include:
NaturalNews.com
WakeUpeire.com
SlayNews.com
Click to expand...
The study also poses possible study errors which they say could account for an elevated reading of DNA plasmids. Further it says that the problem arises with polluted DNA which has not been digested. When they tested Pfizer, they found that that most of the DNA plasmids in the vaccine were digested. In other words they raise the possible problem of DNA contamination but at the same time gives Pfizer a clean bill of health.
It only further highlights imo. that is was a click-bait article trying to suggest things from a study which just wasn't there. So no cigar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom