Switzerland C0V!D-19 “vacc!nes” does not justify “vacc!nat!0n” in any cohort

Switzerland, a non-aligned nation (not NATO, EU, or BRICS) is generally considered the global hub of the pharmaceutical industry. The Government of Switzerland coming out with this position is a clear recognition that objective scientific analysis of the risk/benefit ratio of COVID-19 “vaccines” does not justify “vaccination” in any cohort. Note that the Swiss position is that physicians can prescribe, but will need to carry the risk of liability in the case of adverse events - the exact opposite position of the US HHS position. This clearly demonstrates that this issue has become politicized in the USA, and that the objectivity of HHS decision making has been compromised. This decision is based in part on the widespread natural immunity which has developed in Switzerland, something which was long denied by the US Government, US corporate media and US information technology (social media) companies and their NGO surrogates.

No positive risk-benefit ratio

The remarks on “Adverse Vaccination Symptoms” (UIE) are also piquant:

According to the current state of knowledge, the risk of severe UIE with a recommended vaccination is much lower than the risk of a complication from Covid-19, against which the vaccination protects. The benefit of the vaccination administered according to the recommendation therefore outweighs the possible risks.

In the case of the valid non-recommendation, this essentially means that there is no longer a positive benefit-risk ratio for any Covid vaccination.

Liability: the federal government is out, doctors have a duty

The new recommendations also have consequences for liability. This is what the BAG document on the Covid vaccination strategy (as of November 29th, 2022) says:

Compensation by the federal government to injured persons for vaccination damage can only be considered for vaccinations if they were officially recommended or ordered (see Art. 64 EpG).

However, the federal government only stepped in if the damage was not covered by the vaccine manufacturer, the person vaccinating or an insurance company. The person vaccinating – i.e. generally the doctor – can be held liable if he has breached his duty of care. In this context, it is pointed out that the same rules regarding patient information apply to the Covid vaccination as to all other vaccinations.

The fact is, however, that very few doctors are likely to have informed their patients correctly about all the risks and side effects and the limited effectiveness of the Covid vaccinations. The off-label use of vaccines (not unusual for Covid vaccinations, for example the bivalent mRNA vaccines in Switzerland are not approved as first vaccinations, not as a booster for people under the age of 18 and not as a fifth vaccination) must be discussed become. For doctors, the justification of vaccinations is becoming more difficult due to the changed recommendations, according to a BAG document on liability issues:

If the doctor treating you bases his/her choice or prescription on the vaccination recommendations of the BAG, he/she can prove that he/she has observed the recognized rules of medical and pharmaceutical sciences and has therefore complied with the duty of care under the law on medicinal products.

https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/de/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-epidemien-pandemien/aktuelle-ausbrueche-epidemien/novel-cov/information-fuer-die-aerzteschaft/covid-19-impfung.html