Draft report concerning new crimes of Larisa prosecutors, charges against Vasiliki Thanou to follow

June 27, 2017

Mad dash to get the new evidence in on time to charge Areios Pagos President Vasiliki Thanou officially for her role in the continuing cover up of crimes of Larisa court and in such a way as to set me up for a potentially lethal penalty. She retires officially on Friday, June 30th.  I want to see her held to account for her actions even if it takes years together with all the other prosecutors and judges and Orthodox clergy who have joined in with Alexis Tsipras and George Soros to silence a journalist investigating matters in the public interest.

First, my complaint about the latest suppression of evidence by deputy appeals prosecutor Konstantinos Gorgos pretending to conduct a regular transfer of my corruption case to an external prosecutor to be translated into Greek and handed in.

Delighted, frankly, that the gang under Tsipras has offered me yet more proof of their criminality and their ongoing threat to me.

Absolutely delighted to have finally fingered Thanou herself. No doubt about it, she is either guilty of dereliction of duty or complicit. Given the number of times I have given her evidence and emailed her, it follows she is almost certainly complicit.


To the President of Larisa Appeals Court, Chrysoula Xaliamourtha,

I would like to bring charges against appeals prosecutor Konstantinos Gogos for withholding evidence critical to my case by erasing all mention of my case file number Δ 15/218 and my reports in his judgement.

My original charges at Larisa police station and report are missing from

the prosecutor’s file along with all other documents and evidence I have presented as Δ 15/218 apart of case n a substantial violation of procedure.

Note all these reports have been given the same file number Δ 15/218 by Larisa court because they concern the same crime being repeated over and over and the involvement of an ever widening circle of people.

He has omitted the following reports in his handwritten note to you dated 22 June 2017. (Evidence 1)

1. Ποινικές διώξεις μου στην αστυνομία της Λάρισας τον 20 Maiou 2015, Αναφορά

Αστυνομίας Λάρισας, Δ 15/218 (Evidence 2)

This report contains

A. Ποινικές διώξεις μου στην αστυνομία της Λάρισας τον Απρίλιο 2015, Αναφορά

Αστυνομίας Λάρισας, Μάιος 2015, ΑΠ 1053 3 136-B (Evidence 3)

B. Attempt at bribery of lawyer (Evidence 4)

Admission of briberty attempt (Evidence 5)

C. Η αναφορά μου στην αστυνομία της Λάρισας, Ιούλιος 2015, Αναφορά

Αστυνομίας Λάρισας, Ιούλιος 2015 ΑΠ 1053 3 136 B (Evidence 6)

I mention George Soros and Alexis Tsipras in this report as likely suspects for orchestrating a de facto murder attempt against me on account of my journalism activities. (Evidence 7)

2. Αναφορά εισαγγελέα Λάρισας, 27 Ιανουάριος 2016, Δ 15/218 (Evidence 8)

This report contains evidence George Soros and Alexis Tsipras read my blog.

Predicts the perversion of justice which occurred, underlining one case.

3. Αποδείξεις διαστρέβλωσης δικαιοσύνης, Αναφορά για τη διαστρέβλωση της

δικαιοσύνης, Φεβρουάριος 2016, ΑΠ 372 (Evidence 9)

The Ministry of Interior in collusion with prosecutors created a fake

person Th. Vallliantou to send the investigation in the wrong direction

and suppress evidence of Theodekti’s wrong doing.

4. Evidence of Theodekti’s perjury, Δ 15 218 EΓ4 16 13 F 16 508

Αποδείξεις για την ψευδορκία της Θεοδέκτης, Δ 15 218 EΓ4 16 13 F 16 508

5. The resignation of prosecutor Christina Fasoula from my case Δ 15/218

6 Confirmation my case went to the Areios Pagos in April 2016

7. Προκαταρκτική ποινική ετυμηγορία της Παπαϊωάννου

Preliminary penal verdict of Papaioannou Δ 15 218 EΓ4 16 13

8. Appeal Δ 15 218 EΓ4 16 13

9 Satements to investigative judge at Larisa for case Δ 15 218 EΓ4 16 13 now split into two cases

E 16 486 and Lamba 16 162 for all Larisa prosecutors.

10. Charges against Alexander Oekonomou in relation to Δ 15/218

Gogos must know that (the case file number is vital for my case Δ 15/218 . But Gogos has omitted case file number and all the reports precisely because he is part of the conspiracy to cover up the crimes of Alexis Tsipras, Vasiliki Thanou, Alexander Oekonomou, Theodekti and others.

He selectively referenced the reports )handwritten two reports giving the dates when I wrote them but not the dates when they were officially received by Larisa court and given the file number Δ 15 218.

As a result of this objective deficiency in the selection of reports (and hearing of witnesses) any biased or false statements by the accused and non-essential witnesses could not corrected to my disadvantage.

The prosecutors have systematically suppressed the essential witnesses at

the monastery who could prove the crimes of Theodekti and lead to her


Οι εισαγγελείς απέκρυψαν συστηματικά τους βασικούς μάρτυρες του

μοναστηριού που θα μπορούσαν να αποδείξουν τα εγκλήματα της Θεοδέκτης και

να προκαλέσουν την καταδικη της.

The suppression of my charges on April 22nd, 2015 on 27th April 2017, my July report, my January report, February, Appeal, statements in December in 2016 and rerferencse to only two statements with no case files to be references out of context means that the necessary conditions and facts for making a decision on the case do not exist in a substantial procedural violation.and to my significant disadvantage.

I allege you have sanctioned the substantial procedural violation of issuing communications in handwritten notes, and joined in the violations together with Xenia Dimitriadou and Vasililiki Thanou who have a duty of oversight.

In addition, it was Gogos obligation to give me accurate and correct information about my case. Gogos falsely told me my case had gone to Volos. When I asked for the date, he admitted it was still here, showed me the handwritten note and said he would Karditsa in 15 days. He failed to disclose to me that the note would go to the three judges of the XXX who would be in a position to repeat the original crime of having me forcibly confined under an emergency laws. The three judges fulfil the criteria two witnesses and a prosecutor. I allege this is the plan, to have me forcibly confined and my murder framed as suicide.

The fundamental defects in procedure that occurred in my case mean that the investigation is null and void.

It needs to be reopened.

The individuals responsible, Vasiliki Thanou, Xenia Dimitiriadou, Xoul, Gogos, should be subjected to disciplinary measures and criminal proceedings.

The substantial procedural violations, misconduct and crimes have resulted in damage to me. I have had to endure financial losses during the fake investigation, including legal and translation costs. In addition, I have suffered psychological and emotional stress. That is why I would make an application for compensation from the individuals as well as the institutions they work for, who have a duty of care or supervision.


June 26, 2017

A big thank you to Larissa appeals prosecutor Konstantinos Gogos for handing over yet more evidence of corruption straight into my hand this morning.

Gogos was ever so anxious to reassure me that my case concerning the vast system of corruption in Larisa court was being sent to an external prosecutor as I have repeatedly asked the Areios Pagos President Vasiliki Thanou in emails. So anxious he gave me a copy of his appplication…

Here his handwritten scrawl in violation of an obligation to keep accurate records of his application to have my case handed over to an external investigator…


Note no reference to a single case file number, let alone the original case Delta 15 218, no list of the police and other reports that belong to Delta 15 218, no mention of my testimony to the investigative judge. Just two arbitrary dates in January and March 2016 when I handed in evidence are given by the Gogos, a most arbitrary selection with no specific file number in a substantial violation of the obligation to maintain a complete and accurate record of ALL evidence.

His elegant signature incriminating him as well as Vasiliki Thanou who has a duty of care to make sure the withholding of essential evidence in my case does not keep happening again and again…


What a shame mobster Alexis Tsipras decided to use the justice system, police and prosecutors, who are obligated to follow certain rules and regulations, to try to set me up repeatedly for a lethal penalty!

At first, Gogos lied outright to me, telling me my case had been sent to Volos. When I asked to see the date, he put on a very convincing display of trying to track my case down. Lo and behold, it was still in the office and it consisted of the handwritten note above. Gogos. at great pains to put me at ease when I pointed this out, asked me if I were happy that my case had been “given” to Volos. I mentioned that the Bishop of Volos was implicated in my case and would prefer another town.

So happy was Gogos to oblige that he instantly took the scrawl, tipp exed out Volos and wrote in Karditsa, and handed a copy to me, thereby strongly hinting that  there might be no electronic record of his note.

Either the “case” , if it can be called that when all the essential evidence is once more missing, will never reach Karditsa or Karditsa state prosecutors are in on the scam.

Bizarrely, Gorgos told me that the only way an Austrian judge can get my case is by asking the Greeks for it? Really, when the Greek justice officials have supplied so much evidence that no Austrian judge will ever get the actual or complete file, these same officials seriously expect the Austrian judges to ask only for their tampered versions of all the evidence and ignore most of the facts pertinent to the case?

After asking about my case at Larisa court this morning, I was given this scrawl of paper with some of the new cases that have, in violation of the obligation to keep evidence together in one file, sprung out of my original case.

A totally new case has appeared. Naturally, I was not able to see it. It appears it still has to be assigned. 


How easy it will be for the Austrian prosecutors to compare all my evidence with the files the Greek justice officials give them and find more proof of their perversion of justice. And done each time in such a way as to threaten my life.

It must be wonderful to have had a frontal labotomy and to imagine everyone else has too like Donald Trump constantly inciminating himself, contradicting himself and lying on Twitter.

It’s certainly wonderful for me that Larisa officials, the Areios Pagos and Alexis Tsipras have such limited brain power because it speeds their journey to jail.

Sweet retirement beckons as awareness of vaccine risks accelerates

June 24, 2017

Well, dear readers, the new ruling of the European Court of Justice that vaccines can be blamed for causing illnesses provided victims give reasonable proof of damage means I can finally think of retiring from this blog.

My case in Greece proves that just to publish facts and evidence about vaccine risks, specifically epidemic vaccines, is to become a target for multiple murder attempts orchestrated at the highest levels of government (Alexis Tsipras).

If there were no problems with these vaccines, there would be absolutely no need to go to such lengths to silence a journalist, and one who, moreover, has been more or less alone in covering global epidemics and vaccine plans.

Am just finishing the summary of my case for the Austrian authorities to ask them for protection against the criminal elements in the Greek police, prosecutor office, government and Orthodox church, who have conspired repeatedly together to silence me. That just for warning people about a clear and real danger on the basis of facts and documents. Believe me when I say I  have not enjoyed this role. not enjoyed  doing this blog or and not appreciated repeated murder attempts, smears and danger. I am not a masochist.

Appreciative readers, who finally understand I may have saved their lives several times over from mass bird flu, swine flu and Ebola vaccine scams, can now help me get my case back on track by complaining to the Greek government. Justice and jail for the culprits will serve as a deterrent not just to attacking me but to attacking other journalists investigating matters in the public interest.


June 24, 2017

The European Court of Justice ruled Wednesday that vaccines can be blamed for causing illnesses, specifying new, empirical standards of proof.

The new standards of proof will make it much easier for victims of vaccine injury to obtain compensation. Victims will need to show serious, clear and consistent evidence that vaccines caused an injury.

Pharmaceutical companies, in turn, will now have to prove vaccines did not cause an injury.

The ruling will be binding for courts in all countries in Europe but with some qualifications. In Germany, for example, vaccines recommended by vaccines are governed by special liability rules.


The significance of the ruling is impossible to overstate.  At a minimum, it will require pharmaceutical companies to be much more careful about the vaccines they produce since they will now be liable for any injury reasonably proved.

Pharmaceutical companies have been given blanket immunity for the special category of pandemic and epidemic vaccines on the grounds that pandemics and epidemics are an emergency and the bar has to be lowered. It is not clear if the EU Court ruling will also apply to the category of pandemic and epidemic vaccines given under emergency rules, but the ruling will surely strengthen the hand of consumers.

Until now, pharmaceutical companies and governments have been more or less immune from vaccine injury liability claims due to a rigged court system. They have been able to obstruct vaccine injury claims and deny compensation using the logical fallacy of an unproven assumption, namely, the assumption that there is a “scientific consensus” that vaccines do not cause damage. Courts have accepted this statement as a fact without any proof that it is, indeed, a fact and not a fiction. Courts have, furthermore, accepted the statement as a fact so overwhelmingly true that it excludes all other arguments, evidence and facts to the contrary.

In addition, governments and pharmaceutical companies have insisted victims have to show direct, irrefutable medical proof of a causal relationship between the vaccine and an illness. But medical proof in the narrowly defined sense of clinical proof sets the bar too high since victims do not have multi billion dollar budgets to conduct clinical trials and other medical tests to deliver that kind of proof.

The EU court has shifted the burden of proof in favour of the victim.

Victims now need to prove  that

*their injury or illness came shortly after the vaccine
*that they had no family history of the disease
*that there have been other similar cases of people getting a disease from a vaccine.

The court argued that the “temporal proximity between the administering of a vaccine” and the man’s onset of multiple sclerosis, the lack of familial history with the disease and the “significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following such vaccines being administered” was enough to meet the victim’s burden of proof.

Furthermore, the court allows other forms of proof that are reasonable.

The court also asserted that “excluding any method of proof” other than science-backed evidence would make it exceedingly difficult to establish liability and undermines the objectives of the court, “which are to protect consumer health and safety and ensure a fair apportionment between the injured person and the producer of the risks inherent in modern technological production.”

The mainstream media has spun the ruling to suggest that the new standards of proof are not scientific.

In fact, they do meet the criteria of scientific evidence and of a reasonable inference based on empirical, objective facts.

From Wikipedia

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
Contents  [hide]
1 Principles of inference
2 Utility of scientific evidence
3 Philosophic versus scientific views of scientific evidence
4 Concept of “scientific proof”
5 See also
6 References




June 24, 2017

Vaccine Liability in Europe: A New Development
Posted on June 22, 2017 by Alex Stein
By Alex Stein

Yesterday, the European Court of Justice has issued an important ruling on vaccine manufacturers liability. N.W. et al. v. Sanofi Pasteur MSD, C‑621/15. This ruling triggered a hailstorm of criticism from different media outlets, including CNN. These outlets, however, have largely misreported the ruling and its underlying reasons, partly because of this misleading Press Release issued on behalf of the Court itself. In this post, I analyze the Court’s actual decision and briefly compare it with the American law.

The case at bar was about an adult patient who developed multiple sclerosis shortly after being vaccinated against Hepatitis B. The vaccination he received was manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur. Following the patient’s death from multiple sclerosis, his family filed a products liability suit against the company. The suit was filed in a French court, whose decision on evidentiary matters triggered a series of appeals that brought the case before the European Court of Justice. The Court was asked to determine whether the French evidentiary rule which allows plaintiffs to prove the vaccine’s defect and causation by “serious, specific and consistent evidence” in the absence of medical research in either direction aligns with the European law of products liability. The Court ruled that it does while making a number of clarifications and setting up conditions for such rules being valid under Article 4 of the European Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985.

Specifically, the Court decided that European law precludes evidentiary presumptions with mandatory inferences with regard to a product’s defect. European law, the Court held, also precludes any presumption with a mandatory inference as to whether the manufacturer caused or did not cause the victim’s injury. Such factual issues need to be determined on a case-by-case basis when the plaintiff bears the burden of proof with regard to defect, damage and causation.

According to the Court, it should be permissible for the plaintiff to rely on evidence showing “the temporal proximity between the administering of a vaccine and the occurrence of a disease and the lack of personal and familial history of that disease, together with the existence of a significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following such vaccines being administered.” This means that plaintiffs in vaccine injury or other products liability cases can prove causation as more probable than not based upon any relevant evidence—including differential etiology and naked statistics—even when there is no medical proof linking a vaccine product to, say, multiple sclerosis (as in the case at bar) or autism. Making medical proof a prerequisite for establishing products’ defects and causation would unduly deny plaintiffs access to justice as well as create unfairness in the “apportionment the risks inherent in modern technological production.”

Based on the same principles, the Court also decided that member states can have no mandatory presumptions with regard to manufacturers’ liability. The Court clarified in connection with this ruling that “even if the presumption … were to be refutable, the fact remains that, since the facts preidentified by the legislature or supreme judicial body would be proven, the existence of a causal link would be automatically presumed, with the result that the producer could then find itself, even before the courts ruling on the merits of the case had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the producer’s evidence and arguments, in the position of having to rebut that presumption in order to defend itself successfully against the claim,” and that “such a situation would lead to the burden of proof provided for in Article 4 of Directive 85/374 being disregarded.”

Our system of vaccine liability is set up by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1. This system differs from the European system, as interpreted in the Court’s present decision, in four fundamental respects. First and most important, our system relies on the special Vaccine Court (the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims) while effectively denying plaintiffs access to the general courts system. Second, our system favors vaccine manufacturers in that it makes medical proof of causation a prerequisite for prosecuting a suit against the manufacturer—a requirement that the European Court of Justice has ruled invalid. On the other hand, our system also helps plaintiffs by establishing presumptions of liability that appear in special tables. When a plaintiff proves that she sustained an on-table injury following her immunization, the Vaccine Court must presume the vaccine to be the cause of the injury. See Lauren L. Haertlein, Immunizing Against Bad Science: The Vaccine Court and the Autism Test Cases, 75 Law & Contemp. Probs. 211, 213–17 (2012). Such mandatory pro-plaintiff presumptions also run afoul Article 4 of the European Council Directive 85/374/EEC, as interpreted by the Court. Finally, under the European system, a vaccine victim can only be awarded compensation when s/he proves that the vaccine s/he took fails the risk-utility test. If the vaccine protects millions against serious illness while injuring or even causing death to a single person, it will satisfy the test and will be deemed non-defective. This critical component of the European Court of Justice decision (and the bar it raises for the plaintiffs’ suit) was missed by many of the decision’s critics. In the United States, on the other hand, the victim would still be able to recover compensation if s/he has medical proof of causation or shows the presence of an on-table injury.

The two systems of vaccine liability—ours and the European—strike different tradeoffs between victims’ rights and society’s need to secure adequate supply of safe vaccines. Both tradeoffs are prima facie plausible. Which of them is better than the other is a separate question, too big to be discussed here.



June 24, 2017


Court of Justice of the European Union
Luxembourg, 21 June 2017
Judgment in Case C-621/15

N. W and Others v Sanofi Pasteur MSD and Others
Where there is a lack of scientific consensus, the proof of the defect of the vaccine
and of a causal link between the defect and the damage suffered may be made out
by serious, specific and consistent evidence
The temporal proximity between the administering of a vaccine and the occurrence of a disease, the lack of personal and familial history of the person vaccinated and the existence of a significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following such vaccines being administered may, where applicable, constitute sufficient evidence to make out such proof
Between the end of 1998 and the middle of 1999 Mr J. W was vaccinated against hepatitis B using a vaccine produced by Sanofi Pasteur. In August 1999, Mr W began to present with various troubles, which led to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in November 2000. Mr W died in 2011.
Earlier, in 2006, he and his family had brought legal proceedings against Sanofi Pasteur to obtain compensation for the damage they claim Mr W suffered due to the vaccine.
The case was sent before the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris, France), which observed, inter alia, that there was no scientific consensus supporting a causal relationship between the vaccination against hepatitis B and the occurrence of multiple sclerosis. It held that no such causal link had been demonstrated and dismissed the action.
The French Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation), before which an appeal against the judgment of the Cour d’appel de Paris was brought, asks the Court of Justice whether, despite there being no scientific consensus and given that, under the EU directive on liability for defective products, 1
the injured person is required to prove the damage, the defect and the causal relationship, the court may base itself on serious, specific and consistent evidence enabling it to conclude that there is a causal link between the defect in a vaccine and that there is a causal link between the vaccine
and the disease. Reference has been made in particular to Mr W’s previous excellent state of health, the lack of family antecedents and the close temporal connection between the vaccination and the appearance of the disease.

In today’s judgment, the Court holds that evidentiary rules allowing the court, where there is not certain and irrefutable evidence, to conclude that there is a defect in a vaccine and a causal link between the defect and a disease on the basis of a set of evidence the seriousness, specificity and
consistency of which allows it to consider, with a sufficiently high degree of probability, that such a conclusion corresponds to the reality of the situation, are compatible with the Directive. Such evidentiary rules do not bring about a reversal of the burden of proof which it is for the victim to
discharge, since that system places the burden on the victim to prove the various elements of his case which, taken together, will provide the court hearing the case with a basis for its conclusion as to the existence of a defect in the vaccine and a causal link between that defect and the damage suffered.
Moreover, excluding any method of proof other than certain proof based on medical research, could make it excessively difficult in many situations or, where it is common ground that medicalresearch neither confirms nor rules out the existence of a causal link, impossible to establish

1 Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985, L 210, p. 29).
producer liability, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the Directive and its objectives, which are to protect consumer health and safety and ensure a fair apportionment between the injured
person and the producer of the risks inherent in modern technological production.
The Court nevertheless adds that national courts must ensure that the evidence adduced is sufficiently serious, specific and consistent to warrant the conclusion that, having regard also to the evidence produced and the arguments put forward by the producer, a defect in the product
appears to be the most plausible explanation for the occurrence of the damage. National courts must also safeguard their own freedom of assessment in determining whether such proof has been
made out to the requisite legal standard, until such time as they consider themselves in a position to draw a definitive conclusion on the matter.
In the present case, the Court considers that the temporal proximity between the administering of a
vaccine and the occurrence of a disease, the lack of personal and familial history of that disease, together with the existence of a significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring
following such vaccines being administered, appears on the face of it to constitute evidence which,
taken together, may lead a national court to consider that a victim has discharged his burden of
proof. That could be the case inter alia where that evidence leads the court to consider, first, that the administering of the vaccine is the most plausible explanation for the occurrence of the disease
and, second, that the vaccine therefore does not offer the safety that one is entitled to expect.
The Court adds that it is not possible for the national legislature or the national courts to introduce a method of proof under which the existence of a causal link between the defect attributed to a vaccine and the damage suffered by the victim will automatically be established when certain
predetermined causation-related factual evidence is presented, as that would have the consequence of the burden of proof provided for in the Directive being undermined.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of
European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s
decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.


Medical proof that many flu jabs are dangerous, and the medical community knows it, is the fact they are classified as hazardous waste. If they are hazardous to the environment, how can they not be hazardous injected into the bloodstream of people?

June 24, 2017

The media have gone into a frenzy over a ground breaking European Court of Justice ruling that patients can sue for illnesses they believe were caused by jabs claiming that it opens the door to a flood of baseless cases.



In fact, there is plenty of medical proof or scientific proof that vaccines are harmful, including the fact that many flu vaccines have to be disposed according to hazardous waste rules in the USA and elsewhere.

Robert Kennedy Jr and Robert De Niro are offering a 100 000 dollar reward to anyone who can prove the vaccines are safe. As far as I know, none of the Big Pharma companies is taking up the challenge of tracking the short, medium and long term side effects across a wide range parameters in a study with vaccinated and non vaccinated groups.


From PPMag


While requirements for medical waste disposal are regulated by state environmental agencies, any medications with a hazardous categorization fall under the purview of the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).1 RCRA rules are intended to keep toxic waste, such as mercury, from polluting ground water. Pharmacies must dispose of full or partially used vaccines that are deemed hazardous under RCRA via RCRA-hazardous waste containers, or black bins.

Identifying RCRA-Hazardous Waste
According to the EPA, waste that is not specifically listed is still deemed hazardous if it exhibits characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.2 Given its toxicity, mercury is classified as a toxic hazardous waste under the code D009. Any product with a mercury concentration of 0.2 mg/liter or greater is considered hazardous solid waste. This applies to vaccines that use thimerosal, a mercury derivative, as a preservative.