On 4 October, Marcel de Graaff (MEP FVD), Joachim Kuhs (MEP AfD) and six other Members of the European Parliament wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) asking them to clarify several problems identified with the covid injections. [1]
“These problems were so great we asked the EMA to withdraw the market authorisation,” Mr. de Graaf said.
EMA has responded and to explain the shocking admissions made by EMA, MEPs held a press conference on Tuesday.
The MEPs letter sent to EMA on 4 October stated:
We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament, want to convey our deep concerns regarding the safety and ineffectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and we believe it is imperative that immediate and resolute actions should be taken.
We therefore request the direct suspension of the marketing authorizations of the following COVID-19 vaccines: - Conditional Marketing Authorisation Pfizer (Comirnaty) dated 21 December 2020.
- Conditional Marketing Authorisation Moderna (Spikevax) dated 6 January 2021.
- Renewal of Marketing Authorisation Pfizer (Comirnaty-tozinameran) dated 31 August 2023.
- Renewal Marketing Authorisation Moderna (Spikevax-elasomeran) dated 15 September 2023.
In this letter, we aim to provide a comprehensive, though not exhaustive, rationale for our urgent plea.
The discourse surrounding covid-19 vaccines has been marked by a disconcerting upsurge in reported side effects, and, astonishingly, there have even been alarming reports of excess mortality. All of this has unfolded beneath a veil of unwarranted secrecy.Request for the direct suspension of marketing authorisations, 2 October 2023
The rationale for the covid injection marketing authorisations to be withdrawn as noted in the letter were:
1. Vaccines not authorised for transmission control. These vaccines were authorised for active immunisation only. As such, they should only be administered to people who seek personal protection – they are not authorised for the purpose of reducing transmission or infection rates (transmission control) despite pharmaceutical companies, politicians, and health professionals promoting them due to their potential for transmission control.
2. Clinical trials for XBB.15 have commenced only recently and are scheduled for completion in 2024.
3. Rules for authorisation of genetically modified organisms (“GMO”) are enormously strict as they can have a major impact on humans and the environment. However, a new Regulation was hastily introduced and became effective on 18 July 2020. This regulation pertains to the conduct of clinical trials involving medicinal products designed for human use that contain or consist of genetically modified organisms and are intended for the treatment or prevention of coronavirus disease (covid-19). However, a report published in October 2022 shows that this Regulation is void because it is not based on the correct legal basis.
4. Vaccines that fail to meet quality standards should not be granted marketing authorization. The deficiencies in the quality of the vaccines noted in the letter were: the vaccines are harmful; lack of therapeutic efficacy and unacceptable risks of side effects; lack of declared qualitative and quantitative properties; documents submitted are incorrect; inserts do not meet requirements; and, a breach of good manufacturing practices.
On 18 October, EMA responded. To disseminate the information contained in EMA’s response, Mr. de Graaff, Mr. Kuhs, pharmacologist Willem Engel, statistician Max Schmeling [2] and medical doctor Vibeke Manniche [2] held a press conference on Tuesday.
“This answer [from EMA] contains shocking facts,” Mr. de Graaf said during the press conference.
Regarding the covid injections not being authorised for transmission control, EMA confirmed the MEPs were correct. “You are indeed correct to point out that covid-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission from one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individuals only,” EMA wrote.
“This is devastating for governments that have gone full circle with the message that you are doing it [getting vaccinated] for someone else,” Mr de Graaf said.
Not only did EMA not authorise the vaccines against all infections but EMA went even further and admitted they did not have data on transmissibility. “EMA’s assessment reports on the authorisation of the vaccines note the lack of data on transmissibility,” EMA wrote.
“In other words,” Mr. de Graaf said, “the vaccines were not intended to prevent infections and there was no data at all that substantiates that the vaccines help against infections. In fact, EMA states exposure to the virus increases the chance of infections even in those vaccinated.”
“The mass government campaigns to vaccinate yourself to protect your parents, your neighbours, the weaker in society, were not only unauthorised but also completely nonsense and not based on facts.”
Unfortunately, it gets worse, Mr de Graaf said. EMA also stated that “all safety information should be considered carefully before administering or recommending vaccination.”
“So, you were only allowed to make a recommendation for a vaccination after a doctor had determined that this was sensible in your case,” Mr. de Graaf explained.
“And because no one under the age of 60 had a chance of serious complications due to the coronavirus, no one under the age of 60 should be vaccinated [without exception]. So, the sports halls full of vaccine [jabbers] were completely in conflict with the use of which the vaccines had been [authorised] by the EMA.”
And that’s not all. It gets even worse, Mr. de Graaf said.
“With a large proportion of the general population having had the vaccines, we expect many reports of conditions occurring at or soon after vaccination,” EMA wrote.
“That means the complaints must be reported especially in the first period immediately following vaccination,” Mr. de Graaf said. But, “the government supported a policy in which these complaints were not reported [for] the first 14 days after vaccination because the vaccine would need 10 to 14 days to become effective.”
“All complaints in this period were [noted] as [due to] the coronavirus. And that is not only fraudulent but that [has] deliberately endangered people’s lives.
“And I remind you once again we are fighting with a gigantic so-called unexplained excess mortality.
“In short, this information from the EMA is destructive to the developed vaccination policy of [Dutch Prime Minister Mark] Rutte and [former Deputy Prime Minister Hugo] de Jonge … [The government] forced the vaccines onto our citizens with lies, obscured the side effects and thus brought the health of everyone who had taken such a vaccine into danger.
“The vaccination campaigns should be stopped as soon as possible – it is simply not safe and does not meet the requirements set by the EMA. And the government and all political parties that supported this should be held accountable for their lies and fraud.
Above, we have only noted Mr. de Graaf’s remarks but it’s worth watching the full press conference below. It starts with Mr. de Graaf’s statement in Dutch (with autogenerated English subtitles on YouTube) and then continues in English.
Notes:
- [1] Voor Waarheid has published a timeline of the events that led up to the press conference on Tuesday.
- [2] In March 2023, Schemling and Manniche were two of the three authors of a letter titled ‘Batch-dependent safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine’ that was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.
