Letter opposing new forced vaccination in Poland: Dr Jaskowski’s Franciszkanska Foundation analyses the new plan:
“President: Dr J. Jaskowski, Quaestor: MA Z.Miłkowska, Chancellor: MSc. W.Wesolek
The Association is not notified to the United Nations and the Council of Europe
Address: 80-255 Gdańsk, 3 Starowiślna Street
Dear Marshal of the Senate of the Republic of Poland
Dear PT Senators
Open Letter on the amendment of the law on the prevention and suppression of infectious diseases on the basis of parliamentary print No.293 and 416
Dear Sirs
With great surprise we got acquainted with substantiation PT DeputyRapporteur Alicja Dabrowska on the necessity to amend the named Act in such a direction as indicated in the Annex.While The DeputyRapporteur was discussing the need to change the previous Act of 05 December 2009, she misinforms you Deputies and Senators in an obvious way, to put it mildly.
The Deputy already in the first paragraph gives the groundless assertion that the work on the modification of the law were caused by cit.”the need to adapt the Act to the changing needs of epidemiological surveillance and control of infectious diseases.”
The DeputyRapporteur, however, does not specify what epidemiological surveillance problems in the period of just over two years contributed to this sudden need for modification. What are the supposed changing epidemiological surveillance situations which emerged after the release of the previous law?
The DeputyRapporteur also stresses: page 9, paragraph 2, that quoted: “The object of the draft law is outside the scope of EU law.”
So, supposedly, the European Union sees no need to get involved and change the legislation, and a group of deputies under the influence of rather unspecified factor X makes profound changes.
Below we would like to give examples of such changes, contrary both to the current Constitution of the Republic, and other laws. We shall also present the advantages for certain groups associated with this, after the Health Commission’s proposed changes and the loss for you.
The DeputyRapporteur, MD Alicja Dabrowska, states: page 1, paragraph 2 quoted: “The need for amendment resulted from the experience gained from the application of law by the representatives of the central government, the Chief Sanitary Inspector ……… as well as representatives of district and provincial authorities of the State Sanitary Inspection.”
The Deputy does not give a single example to negative “experience” those representatives gave. The Chief Sanitary Inspector did not speak on any negative experiences of the previous law either. What a terrible experience did GIS representatives gain that the Act must be amended in deep secrecy?
If we analyze the proposed changes, the unequivocal conclusion raises that they are made under the influence of szczepionkarskiego lobby! And specifically they must increase their profits.
In the following paragraph The DeputyRapporteur supports the need for changes in the law with the need to align the terminology with other laws and states that the proposed amendments are of a formal and legal and do not require new tasks on sanitary epidemiological stations, or cause additional expenses.
Is that true? Unfortunately, MD Alicja Dabrowska, to put it delicately, does not speak true. Whereas, with almost certain probability, you can clearly say that she does it in a conscious way. It is difficult to assume that the medical doctor would not understand what is changing the definition of infectious disease. Article 2 point 1 of the proposed amendment changes the definition of infectious disease. cit:
“Infectious disease – a disease that is caused by biological pathogenic factors”
We have a few problems at this one point, both legal and financial.
First, the definitions of diseases are defined internationally. Neither a single person nor the organization can change concepts. This is so obvious that it needs no justification. Unless, there is need to make profit behind this. In Poland, up to now the UN definition was in force.
According to the medical dictionary: Contagious diseases are infectious diseases in other words. Contagious disease is characterized by the fact that it can be moved very easily between the two individuals. In case of humans, contagious diseases are mainly caused by viruses, bacteria, and fungus. The symptoms and treatment will depend directly on the type of the disease.
Textbook definition:
CONTAGIOUS AND PARASITIC DISEASES
General: The concept of contagious disease. A contagious disease is the disease, which is formed under the influence of intrusion and the development of microorganisms in the human body.
According to the NIH website:
Definitions of the cases of contagious diseases in this document are intended to unify the declaration and to ensure comparability of data collected within the framework of epidemiological surveillance in Poland and the European Community. Applying of these definitions focuses on the qualification and registration of cases by the sanitary-epidemiological stations and preparation of reports by these institutions…. MZ-56 print.
In the routine epidemiological surveillance of contagious diseases in Poland there are three types of definitions:
1. standard definitions of the European Union
2. definitions of European Union adapted to the needs of supervision in Poland
3.Polish definitions – in the absence of definitions in force in the European Community
It is curious to which group does the deputy include the proposed changing of the definition?
At the same time a very important question: why in spite of government declarations, the discussed amendment ignores the fact of Polish membership in the European Union. Is it possible that PT Deputies do not know the relevant laws, quote:
” COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
having regarded the Treaty establishing the European Community, having regarded /repeated and it is incomprehensible/ the decision No. 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network of epidemiological surveillance and control of contagious diseases [1], and in particular art.3 point a) and c) and art. 8.
Contrary to the opinions stated by Deputy A. Dądrowska, the proposed amendment to the legislation interferes with the Union legislation and it is so far that it makes it impossible to compare the relevant documents.
If we assume a different definition, all statistical comparisons are not possible, what yesterday was an contagious disease, now might be something else and vice versa. It is difficult to presume that a specialist group called the Health Committee of the Parliament of the Republic would not know about it.
For example, it is known that after the vaccination the measles viruses occur in clods in the digestive tract and can infect for example a family and be the cause of the disease of vaccinated person. According to the new definition it will not be a complication after the vaccination but only the new disease.
In other words: in this clever way any postvaccinal complications will disappear. Nobody will be able to claim compensation, because there are no complications. Of course in statistics.
Poland is a signatory to many international agreements. In those contracts there are defined the terms of infectious diseases. How would it be possible to fulfill those contracts after the introduction of such legislative confusion?
Besides this, the definition of contagious diseases is the textbook definition of the subject: infectious diseases. Changing of the concepts of infectious diseases forces the change of the textbooks. After all, graduates of medical schools, undergraduate rescue studies and nursing schools, if they are to implement the new law, they must know what we call an infectious disease and what not. The average study period lasts several years. How these concepts are to be changed in the textbooks and scripts – the Deputy Rapporteur do not mention. Who is to bear the costs of such changes? Also nothing. On this subject – silence.
Thirdly, as the Deputy Rapporteur surely knows, we have a body called the Central Statistical Office. One of the tasks of this state institution is to collect and analyze data. How can you compare the disease with completely different definitions? How and on what basis the Government will set priorities for the needs with not knowing whether the incidence is increasing or decreasing? In this regard, there is also the lack of explanation.
All forms of notification of infectious diseases are inconclusive, according to official definitions. According to current law, all shall be disposed of as waste paper and new ones should be printed. Of course, at taxpayer expense, because the Deputy clearly said in a parliament appearance, that the proposed changes do not cause the financial burden.
Another statement is very peculiar: page 2 line 8 from below quoted: “Taking into account the high costs that would be carried by the stations …… the rules were abandoned that have introduced reimbursement of the cost of the notification unfavourable postvaccinal reactions and illnesses ….. the legal doctors obligations to keep records of applications were abandoned as well. “
Firstly: What high costs? The Deputy A. Dąbrowska would not mention. Each sanitary and epidemiological stations as well as GIS have official Internet connections. Similarly, they have health care facilities. What is the cost here of sending information by the doctor about finding complications after vaccination? This remains a sweet mystery of the Commission.
Secondly, how is a refund of alleged cost of transmission of information by the doctor relevant here? Which has been shown to be at least an abuse, with the conducting by given medical institution – the doctor, the summary dossier on the occurrence of complications?
It is clear who and to whom such changes are at hand. It’s about the impossibility of proving complications after vaccination.
Thirdly, it is well known that doctors in Poland did not perform the obligation to report postvaccinal complications. We recall that the law related to notifications was enacted in 1964. Neither GIS nor the NIH have such documentation and statistics. We know, based on analysis of scientific literature, e.g. USA, UK, that doctors in these highly disciplined countries, report about 10% of actually occurring complications. If, however, in Poland for 50 years it was unable to force on the government officials NIH to keep such register, what was the reason of complete abandonment of applications?
From familiar doctors, especially in smaller towns, there have been reports of a violent attack of employees of county and regional sanitary and epidemiological stations on those doctors who report complications. Employees of Sanitary directly threaten with the closure of the facility alleged to sanitary reasons.
For 20 years it is known that Sanitary sell vaccines and this is a very lucrative dealing. The last Szczecin case, viewed in the prosecution, showed how the 750 000 zl earned extra was distributed in the station. This is direct evidence that the whole thing is designed to prevent tracking of the postvaccinal complications and relevant paragraphs are introduced solely for the benefit of szczepionkarski lobby.
It is important to recall that the profits of the sale of vaccines by the stations reach to approximately 30% value of the vaccine. At least these estimates are given in the so-called yellow week. So in one year it is a few hundred million loss for the State Treasury.
The second conclusion derived directly from that formulated rules, is that officials are granted absolution for buying unnecessary vaccines. As it is known, in Germany the vaccines against influenza 240 million euro worth, had to be destroyed due the mindless shopping. This is the amount in our conditions efficient for NHF to cover two months of reimbursement.
Also surprising is the fact of the establishment of a provision giving authority to the lowest degree Sanitary Station of free introduction of vaccination in the region and use of direct coercion. Since the days of King Kazimierz Wielki, it is known that in Poland, only the court has the right to prosecute anyone. As a country we pride ourselves on this fact. And here, contrary to tradition, in spite of world-wide trend, contrary to the law of the European Union, whose members we are, what clearly is not seen by members of the committee, the lowest official standing in the hierarchy can use the direct coercion. Coercion may be used without regard for anybody or anything. How do you PT senators remember, it was in a sobering-up stations. After a series of fatal accidents – those places were abandoned.
A major mistake at all the proposed changes is also a combination of control functions GIS with the function of commercial. For two thousand years, it was tried to ALWAYS KEEP SEPARATE CONTROL FUNCTIONS AND TRADE FUNCTIONS IN EUROPEAN LEGISLATION. And in this particular case, despite the pressure from the medical community, the Parliament Health Committee of the Republic of Poland, combines these two functions in one unit. So, the official will decide what and whom to sell, what to buy and when to punish for disobedience, as we see right now. Contrary to global trends there shall be no control, which would be a warning to the institution. So we go back to medieval Asia and bakshees.
It is even hard to assume that members of the Health Committee would not understand the problem!
After the introduction of the amended provisions the official, who on the basis of telling to the hand and not to the ear, will purchase needless vaccines, will implement the compulsion of vaccination and everything will be in accordance with the proposed law!
The Deputy Rapporteur with disarming honesty confesses that the relevant officials for 27 years did not prepare the implementing rules for the Act of 1985 and left it unrated. So on the one hand we have a bill for over a quarter of a century which is not implemented, why? and on the other hand, the rapid acceleration of the pace of work without giving any reason. Why?
There are a lot of such biased records. Here we signalise only the problem which is posed by the new proposal to modify the law.
Yet the PT you, as representatives of the Nation should confront the proposed changes to the most important law which is the Constitution of the Republic
Therefore, we believe that both art.38 and 39 of the Constitution and art. 68 apply in every situation. These articles are explicit: cit.”
Article 38: “The Republic of Poland shall ensure the legal protection of every human life.”
Article 39: “no one shall be subjected to scientific experimentation, including medical, without the express of voluntary consent.”
Art.68: “1. Everyone has the right to health care. The public authorities are obliged to provide special health care to children, pregnant women, people with disabilities and the elderly.
In this situation, the other legal acts must be in accordance with this basic document.
So if the Constitution states that every patient has a free will, why a relatively low-ranking official may, in this case – vaccination, without any legal consequences for himself, deprive a man of will in the majesty of the law by using the authority of the state?
Actually, not only can deprive people of the possibility to decide for themselves, but at the same time such official takes no responsibility for this decision.
Already in 1984 the World Health Organization presented a model of the Declaration of Patients’ Rights as a guideline for use in respective countries. The document specifies that EVERYONE has the right to lc:
“- Respect for their human person
- Self-deciding [for information about the health and PROPOSED THERAPEUTIC PROCEDURES along with the risk and anticipated benefit, to decide whether to consent or refuse consent to medical interventions]
-Respect for physical and mental integrity and a sense of security of person [to REFRAIN FROM MEDICAL ACTION WITHOUT GIVING CONSENT] unless the person is incapable of giving consent, and immediate medical intervention is necessary, not to submit to scientific research without consent and assessment of ethical committee. “
We would like to remind that in Poland on the basis of the current Constitution and the laws THE PATIENT BILL OF RIGHTS was already developed 20 years ago, which was submitted to the public by the Minister of Health and Welfare.
The Law on Health Care reports that cit. “the patient has the right to give consent to the granting of certain health benefits, or refuse – after obtaining suitable, sufficient information.
As clearly apparent from the quoted and the applicable rules, the basis of a doctor’s action is the patient’s consent to such medical or other action. This is clearly stated in the Official Gazette of 1997 No. 28 item 152 art. 25, and further, in particular the following articles;
Article 33.1.The examination or providing other health care to the patient without his consent is permissible if it requires urgent medical attention, and the patient because of health or age can not agree and it is not possible to communicate with his legal representative or the actual guardian.
2. The doctor should consult the decision to launch the medical activities in the circumstances referred in paragraph 1 with another doctor.
3. The doctor notes the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 and 2 in the patient’s medical records.
Article 34.1.The doctor may perform surgery or use a method of treatment or diagnosis causing an increased risk for the patient, after obtaining their written consent.
2. Prior to giving the consent by the patient in a situation referred to in paragraph 1, the doctor is obliged to give them the information in accordance with article 31.
3. The doctor may perform surgery or use a method referred to in paragraph 1on the minor patient, incompetent or unable to express an aware written consent, after the consent of his legal representative, and when the patient does not have a representative or it is impossible to communicate with him – after obtaining the consent of the guardianship court.
4. If the patient is over 16 years, his written consent is also required.
5. In the situation referred to in paragraph 1, the provisions of art. 32 par. 6
6. If the minor patient’s legal representative, incompetent or incapable of aware consent does not agree by the doctor to perform the activities listed in paragraph 1, and needed to eliminate the danger threatening to the patient’s life or serious bodily harm or a serious health disorder, the doctor may perform such operations after obtaining the consent of the guardianship court.
7. The doctor may perform the activities referred to in paragraph 1, without the consent of the patient’s legal representative or guardianship consent of the competent court, when the delay caused by proceeding on the consent would threaten the patient’s life, serious injury or serious health disorder. In this case the doctor is obliged, if possible, to consult another doctor, possibly the same specialty. The doctor shall immediately notify the legal representative, guardian or guardianship court on the performed operations.
8. The circumstances referred to in paragraph 3-7, the doctor shall make an appropriate annotation in the patient’s medical documentations.
In addition to the legislation the Code of Medical Ethics also regulates the rules of doctor’s conduct in relation to the patient and in particular art. 13 and 15 quoted:
“Art.13
1. The doctor is obliged to respect the patient’s right to conscious participation in making the decisions concerning their health.
2. The information given to the patient should be formulated in a way they understand.
3. The doctor should inform the patient about the possible degree of risk of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and expected benefits related to the implementation of these procedures, as well as the possibilities of the use of another medical procedure. “
“Art 15
1. The diagnostic, therapeutic and preventive action requires the consent of the patient. If the patient is not capable of conscious consent, it should be expressed by his legal representative or the person actually taking care of the patient.
2. In the case of a minor, the doctor should also try to obtain the consent, provided that this person is able to consciously express this approval.
3. The initiation of diagnostic, therapeutic and preventive action without the consent of the patient may be permitted only exceptionally in special cases of a threat to life or health of the patient or others.
4. The examination without the required consent may be performed by the doctor also on behalf of an agency or institution approved for that by law, unless it creates undue health risk to the patient.
5. In case of not obtaining the consent to the proposed procedure, the doctor should continue, if possible, providing the medical care to the patient. “
The Supreme Court in its judgment of 17 February 1989 [OSNKW 5-6/1989, pos.42] stated that cit: “the life of every human being regardless of age, health status and level of knowledge, the state of family life and the real social usefulness, is an universal value which is subject to the same legal protection. [The patient] giving consent to medical intervention allows the doctor to breach the integrity in certain area, which is the subject of the consent”
EUROPEAN BIOETHICS COMMISSION provides that cit: “You can not perform medical intervention without free and conscious consent of the person subjected to it. The person must be given appropriate information beforehand about the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as its consequences and risks. The interested person may at any time freely withdraw the consent. “
It is known that Poland, under the Association Agreement with the European Union, since 1991 has been required to adjust its law to Community law. It is also known that for a few years we have been members of the European Union, as politicians particularly often refer to. There is no argument that the parents bear not only ethical but also legal responsibility for minor children, unless the final and binding judgment of the court in certain case is different.
Why do Members of the Health Committee not know these rules, or worse, they know them but pretend they do not apply?
In this letter the legal basis for health care operations is clearly identified. Therefore – the clear decision must be made, whether prophylactic vaccination [not treatment] is the activities of health professionals according to the law or not. If they are, the mentioned provisions should be definitely used. If, however, vaccination, enigmatically called prophylactic, is not treatment or any other form of activities of doctors, the law should be developed that gives a legal basis for officials to use direct constraint.
It is important to keep in mind the consequences arising from the use of such direct constraint. It is known that at present only the police have such powers.
Now, if as a result of the use of direct constraint, the patient’s right will be violated, involving the infringement of physical integrity, and occurrence of side effects such as complications after vaccination, then who bears the responsibility, both legal – criminal and civil- liability for damages?
It is difficult to assume that members of the Health Committee do not understand this!
In other words, who is to pay to the child’s family the compensation and pension, if necessary, and how much? It is known that there are more and more such cases in recent years. Recent scientific studies leave no doubt about the occurrence of serious postvaccinal complications. Only after one vaccine Gardasil in the U.S. in the period of about 3 years there were 30 000 reported complications. Who bears the costs of treatment and so underestimated health care budget?
We emphasize that the case of vaccination called prophylactic according to the law looks very strange. The decision on the use of vaccination, type of vaccine purchased is made by the official, not always the highest range and in addition not being a medical practitioner. [This occurs more often] simply, they are people entirely of non-medical [vide National Institute of Hygiene], and therefore in case with the performance of this decision by the doctor, the patient or his family lay claims to a particular health care facility. In other words, why the doctor has to pay for administrative decisions such as buying an inadequate vaccine?
This is compounded by the fact of mystery, which is lack of informing the public [not publishing the rules for introduction of certain types of vaccines] on the nature and principles of introduced vaccination. The diary of so-called compulsory vaccination is determined in secret by a small group of officials known to no one. The rules of purchase of this or any other vaccine and the motives for implementing it in the calendar are not published.
Why, even on the Ministry of Health website, are there no justifications for the introduction of this, and not another vaccine, in this, but not in another month?
Why is there no scientific basis [scientific research] justifying the introduction of such and not other vaccine and the benefits of using this vaccine?
Why is there lack of information about the sums paid to pharmaceutical companies in connection with the purchase of such, and not any other vaccine? After all the law on public procurement is open!!
In other words, why are experiments with release of this, and no other vaccine confidential and are not an integral annex to the decision of the Ministry to introduce a vaccination?
It is clearly visible that the legal rules in force in POLAND have been violated. Civil liberty has been LIMITED in a serious way by abolishing the principle of patient consent to execute a particular experiment, the surgery on their body.
A relatively low-level official, who do not have substantial competence, takes the decisions for legally incompetent citizen.
This formed situation is an explicit factor favour to corruption of pharmaceutical companies which are keenly interested in introducing their vaccines on the Polish market especially after the multibillion-dollar penalties and compensation paid in other countries. In medical circles it is said explicitly that the release of this and not another vaccine on the market, it is at least the car keys for class S mercedes car.
In this case, presented by the Deputy Rapporteur Alicja Dąbrowska basis for the amendment clearly shows that some companies selling vaccines will be the beneficiaries. These companies will make staggering profits without bearing any costs, thanks to the amendment.
Due to the fact stated repeatedly in the media, that a change in law it is a cost of $ 3,000,000 so called lobbying. In our view this matter definitely qualifies to examine both by the ISA, CAB and SAO.
P. S. Of course we accept the possibility that this is not a doctor A.Dąbrowska wrote the read text, but we leave it to the assessment of special services.
On behalf of the Association Management
Jerzy Jaśkowski Wiesław Wesołek”
