SWITZERLAND: Switzerland has ordered an immediate halt to Covid-19 vaccinations and withdrawn all vaccination recommendations. Doctors are only permitted to administer the controversial vaccines in exceptional cases and under specific conditions, but they will bear the risk of liability for vaccination-related damage.
According to the vaccination recommendation released by the Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) and the Federal Commission for Vaccination Issues (EKIF) on April 3, which can be accessed on this website, this is the current situation:
In principle, the FOPH and EKIF will not formulate a recommendation for vaccination against Covid-19 in spring/summer 2023 due to the expected low virus circulation and the high level of immunity in the population.
Vaccination is only possible in individual and unique cases – namely:
Vaccination is possible for people who are particularly at risk (BGP) ≥ 16 years of age if the attending physician considers it to be medically indicated in the respective epidemiological situation in the individual case, a temporarily increased protection against serious illness is to be expected and the last vaccination dose at least 6 months ago.
However, there is no specific vaccination recommendation provided even for individuals who are at risk.
The BAG’s recommendations could alter if there is a new wave of outbreaks; however, the document states that vaccinations are no longer recommended for individuals under the age of 65, even in such circumstances.
According to the Swiss government, there is no favorable risk-benefit ratio, as stated in the comments on “Adverse Vaccine Reactions.”
According to the current state of knowledge,the risk of severe UIEwith 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 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.
Very few doctors are likely to have informed their patients about all the risks and side effects and the limited effectiveness of the Covid vaccinations. 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.
The Weltwoche reports that from now on doctors will be liable for deaths and injuries resulting from vaccinations – which means that their willingness to vaccinate is likely to decrease significantly.
by Baxter Dmitry
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.