0 12 min 11 mths


from Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio

There is an open-ended legal clash between COSAP (Trade Union Coordination for Police Members) and AIFA (Italian Medicines Agency) in relation to the mandatory vaccines imposed by Draghi government to the policemen since last December 15 in order to continue working.

In recent days we have given a preview the news of AIFA-certified post office boxes clogged with hundreds of police officers who have requested the display of the medical prescription for vaccines, according to an anti-obligation strategy already applied by the Bolzano lawyer Renate Holzeisen also for other professional categories. Today not only does the union respond but does so with a letter from the lawyer that denies the validity of the response of the director of the Italian Medicines Agency and disputes, on the basis of precise regulatory references, serious and clear violations of pharmacological and medical regulations.

«The COSAP police union hereby responds to the AIFA note referred to in the subject, in which it finds complaints expressed by the Director General of the aforementioned Agency regarding a massive reception of e-mails sent by hundreds of policemen. The many e-mails mentioned in the note evidently represent that litmus test of legitimate doubts and requests connected to the vaccination campaign which the policemen are obliged to in order to preserve the right to work, pursuant to Legislative Decree 44/2021. We remind AIFA that every single policeman has the right to receive a single reply to his e-mail. The WHAT P, in the interest of the represented category and the whole community, responds to the AIFA note in question with the attached comment prepared for this purpose by the lawyer “he writes in a letter sent to the Ministries of the Interior and of Health as well as obviously to the regulatory body of the medicines concerned the national secretariat of the trade union organization represented by Sergio Scalzo.

Before reading how the lawyer dismantles the arguments of the Italian Medicines Agency point by point, we point out that COSAP has already undertaken a legal battle on another by appealing to the Lazio Regional Administrative Court in relation to some violations of the law.

“The COSAP National Secretariat unanimously approved the mandate to its lawyer DORIA Luigi of the Court of Lecce to appeal to the Lazio TAR for the cancellation after suspending the circular signed by the Chief of Police, having protocol No. 333 6142 of 10/12/2021, with the subject: Decree-law 26 November 2021, n. 172. Urgent measures for the containment of the COVID-19 epidemic and for the safe conduct of economic and social activities. Vaccination obligation for State Police personnel – Implementing provisions. COSAP and Attorney DORIA have identified in the circular de qua profiles of illegitimacy, unreasonableness and discriminators; which is why the appeal has been notified and the formal requirements for filing and registering in the role preparatory to the discussion are in progress. COSAP’s battle against discrimination continues!».

But now let’s see in detail some of the focal points of the response of the lawyer Holzeisen in relation to the requests for medical prescriptions made by the police on the basis of a form she had previously prepared (NB the links to the Gospa News inquiries were added a posteriori by our editorial staff due to the close correlation with the issues set out).

“AIFA, instead of responding to the more than legitimate requests for display of documentation also sent to the respective Local Health Authorities by citizens belonging to professional categories (teachers, health professionals, members of the defense, security sector, etc.) subjected to an unconstitutional obligation to treat with substances still in the experimental phase (see the example of one such request in the annex), he turns to the Ministry of the Interior complaining of the clogging of his certified e-mail boxes and, in any case, providing important news »writes the lawyer on behalf of the police union.

“In fact, AIFA itself confirms in its Note to the Ministry of the Interior that the four substances currently authorized on a conditional basis for placing on the market, called” vaccines “-Covid-19 (Comirnaty of Pfizer / BioNTech, Spikevax of Moderna, Vaxzevria of AstraZeneca and Janssen of Johnson & Johnson) have been classified by the AIFA itself as drugs for which a medical prescription is needed ».

“AIFA could not have done anything else, given that the European Commission with the respective Execution Decisions of the conditional marketing authorization (and centralized with effect for the whole European Union) of these substances has provided in the respective Annex II in Point B (Conditions and Limitations of Supply and Use) that there must be a medical prescription for the legitimate application of these substances. Textually, the European Commission has ordered: “Medicinal product subject to medical prescription””.

«The AIFA has reasonably classified these substances as substances that require a, all the more thorough and careful evaluation and therefore cautious application, considering the fact that these substances are still in an experimental stage. At present, in fact, neither efficacy nor safety is confirmed. We will have to wait for the results of the trials to get the first medium-term data, while, as the CEO of Moderna stated a few days ago, it will take at least ten years to get an idea of ​​the long-term effects. conditional on placing on the market only if they are missing preclinical, pharmacological and clinical studies(see EC Regulation no. 507/2006) “.


“And, therefore, the AIFA has provided in its classification decisions that for these substances for the purposes of their permitted and, therefore, legitimate inoculation, there must be the release of a restrictive medical prescription (RRL)”, Holzeisen specifies, also in reference at the AIFA notes that it denied the need for medical prescriptions for vaccines.

«The restrictive medical prescription (RRL) is regulated by articles 91 and 93 of Legislative Decree 219/2006. and means that: (taken from https://www.fcr.re.it/ricetta-limitativa) the respective medicines can be sold to the public on prescription from hospital centers (Article 93 of Legislative Decree 219/2006): they are medicines which, although they can also be used in home treatments, require that the diagnosis be carried out in hospitals or in centers that have adequate means of diagnosis … These medicines must bear on the outer packaging or, failing this, on the primary packaging, after phrases “To be sold on presentation of a prescription”, or “To be sold on presentation of a medical prescription used only once”, the specification of the type of facility or specialist authorized to prescribe “.

«Substances of this kind could certainly never be inoculated in contexts lacking the guarantees required for the application of substances of this kind. Instead, in recent months we have seen all sorts of colors: inoculations even on the beach, in the discotheque, on the bus, etc. And now even the inoculation in pharmacies certainly does not correspond to the environment in which substances of this kind are administered ».

«The medical prescription must obviously refer to the situation of each individual person after this has been adequately informed by the specialist vaccinator (given that it is a RRL prescription) pursuant to art. 8 Reg. (EC) 507/2006 on nature: gene-based substance still in the experimental phase, on efficacy: mere prevention of the development of the Covid-19 disease and not of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and on the safety profile: there is a lack of fundamental data due to studies not done or still in progress of the substance intended to be inoculated “adds the lawyer, highlighting a concept clearly stated by a famous geneticist from Cologne.

The Professor Walter Doerfler, in fact, wrote disturbing words in one of his research on gene sera: «The human population currently participates in exposure to foreign DNA in a huge experiment. After the completion of vaccinations around the world, a post-vaccination sentinel program should be established to monitor the exacerbation of unexpected, possibly new, human disorders in vaccinated individuals.


“The doctor pursuant to art. 13 Medical Code of Ethics must first of all inquire and then inform the person concerned by the health treatment on the nature, efficacy and risk profile of the substance he intends to prescribe “, the COSAP lawyer remarked, specifying that” the “specialist” vaccinator must inform the person concerned with the fact that there is currently a lack of data on the effect these substances have ”.

Its list corresponds to those problems already highlighted in previous Gospa News inquiries: from those in the medium-long term, such as the danger of developing pulmonary immunopathology highlighted by scientific research published as early as October 2020 by two Chinese universities, to those about pregnant women reported by two New Zealand researchers, about people with inflammatory disorders and carcinogenicity and mutagenicity (such as the possible DNA modification attested by Professor Doerfler’s study).

“And then, since these are experimental substances, the” specialist “vaccinator obviously must also take into consideration the enormous number of adverse events reported and entered in the official database of EMA drug events (EudraVigilance)»Adds Holzeisen citing« the fact that in Italy at least n. 18 deaths with a clear and direct causal link with the injection of these substances».

«We know that in the overwhelming part of the so-called lethal” illnesses “which, since the vaccination campaign began, have afflicted our people with evident worrying intensity. Young people, the necessary autopsies are not performed, even if Regulation (EC) No. 507/2006 would require a serious pharmacovigilance in the interest of the community! “.

In Germany the director of the Pathology Division of the Heidelberg Hospital he carried out the autopsy reports on several dozen vaccinated deceased, in consultation with the local judiciary, and ascertained that the deaths of 30% of them had a causal link with the inoculation of the gene sera.

“Furthermore, a doctor, especially if specialized in the inoculation of substances still in an experimental phase (… specialization of the doctor that would be required by the demanding RRL medical prescription) should be aware that the number of adverse events reported statistically constitutes only a small part of the number real (we are talking about 1 to 6 per cent) and that, therefore, the reality of the adverse events caused by these actually experimental substances is unfortunately much more serious “.


«The vaccination campaign does not involve“ specialist ”doctors for the treatment with a gene-based substance with a conditional marketing authorization only, as, on the contrary, an RRL medical prescription would require! In fact, doctors of any “sector” are recruited without any adequate education and training, who do nothing but act as mere executors of instructions given at a political level in point of exemption from the obligation under Articles 4 and 4-ter DL 44/2021 »continues the COSAP lawyer. (Keep reading…)



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *