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.


Et tu, Thanou?

June 24, 2017

All the evidence points to Greece’s Areios Pagos President Vasiliki Thanou being implicated in the repeated perversion of justice in my case. A clue that she may have established back channels to receive funding is a secretive gala  at the Hilton she organized attended by foreign guests and with intransparent financing held.

MPs from To Potami have tabled questions asking who is paying for the event. 

George Soros? Geoffrey Pyatt? Jacob Rothschild? Are there offshore bank accounts being filled up off radar?


From Ekathimerini…

Judicial authorities and MPs have lashed out at Supreme Court President Vassiliki Thanou over an event she is planning on Friday in celebration of the court’s 182nd anniversary.

Thanou has reportedly booked the events hall of a five-star hotel in Athens to hold the gala, which critics have dismissed as an unnecessary expense, especially as it is customary for institutions to celebrate only 50-year chapters of their history.

Meanwhile, sources have suggested that Supreme Court deputy prosecutor Dimitris Dasoulas recently resigned from the event’s planning committee over concerns regarding its funding.


Soros fixer from Eurasia in crosshairs of Senate probe into whether AG Loretta Lynch tried to stifle Hillary email investigation

June 24, 2017

From USA Today

The committee, in a statement released Friday by Grassley and Graham, cited an April story by The New York Times reporting that the FBI came into possession of a batch of hacked documents, including one authored by a “Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far.” After reading that story, Grassley requested a copy of the document from the Justice Department, which he said never responded.

A month later, The Washington Post reported that the email had been sent by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., in her former role as the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, to Leonard Benardo of the Open Society Foundation, an international grantmaking network founded by Democratic mega-donor and businessman George Soros. That email, according to the Post, indicated that Lynch had privately assured Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria that the FBI’s investigation wouldn’t “go too far.”

“Comey was reportedly concerned that the communication would raise doubts about the investigation’s independence and began discussing plans to announce the end of the Clinton email investigation rather than simply referring it to the Department (of Justice) for a prosecutorial decision,” the committee’s statement said. “Comey’s extraordinary action to announce the end of the investigation was a break from Justice Department protocol, and was later cited as justification (by the White House) for his removal from the FBI.”