In Germany, there are currently 209 active lawsuits filed by people suffering from adverse reactions to the covid vaccine. One law firm believes that many more are on their way and that they have over 1500 clients for the same reason.
More and more people suffering from various side effects of the Covid vaccine are taking the pharmaceutical giants to court. For example, a woman who works in the healthcare industry recently sued BioNTech for injuries she suffered from the injection. She suffered from upper body pain, swollen body parts, fatigue and sleep disorders.
During the week, a man in the town of Rottweil was also questioned after he claimed to have suffered vision problems after receiving a Covid vaccine from BioNTech. Ahead of the start of the compensation process on Monday, the Ministry of Health (BGM) revealed that 209 compensation cases are currently pending before the country’s courts.
In Germany, the state pays a large portion of the legal costs as well as possible future damages. Lawyer Joachim Caesar-Preller, who represents the man in the Rottweil trial, believes that the state’s assumption of the pharmaceutical companies’ costs could have an impact on the negotiations.
– The state is taking on a double role in the Covid trials, which is problematic, says Caesar-Preller.
Attorney Tobias Ulbrich of Rogert & Ulbrich, who represents the woman suing BioNTech, says they currently represent about 1,500 clients who claim to have been injured by the company’s vaccines. He, too, sees the government’s dual role as problematic.
– The manufacturers have no interest in settling because the government is paying their lawyers, he says.
We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.
Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…
The European Commission is found guilty by the European Court of Justice of withholding text messages between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO in connection with the multi-billion euro purchase of COVID-19 vaccines. The Court ruled that the Commission violated transparency legislation when it refused to disclose the messages.
Now the Commission must disclose the conversations or provide a more credible explanation for why it cannot disclose them.
In spring 2021, it emerged that the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, had private text message conversations in connection with the comprehensive COVID-19 vaccine agreement concluded between the EU and the pharmaceutical company. The agreement covered 1.8 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccine, but few details of how it was reached have been made public. For example, the price tag for each dose is still not known.
When a journalist from the New York Times requested the text message conversations between von der Leyen and Bourla, it was announced that these had been deleted. The following year, the European Court of Auditors reviewed the case and questioned why the European Commission did not disclose the text messages or other written details of the agreement. Furthermore, the Commission is said to have chosen not to share any written details of the agreement, something it has been transparent about in the past, which was of course also questioned by the Court.
The European Court of Auditors has no authority to demand more information about the text message conversations, but the New York Times chose in 2023 to file a lawsuit in the matter and this week the case was brought before the European Court of Justice. The court was asked to examine whether the European Commission had breached the law by not disclosing the conversations.
Court: “Must provide credible explanations”
The court’s decision finds that the European Commission did break the law when it refused to disclose the text message conversations between the chairman and the CEO, reports the New York Times. Under EU transparency laws, the conversations should have been shared with the newspaper.
The European Commission claimed that it did not consider the conversations important and therefore deleted them and that they cannot be retrieved. However, it never explained the extent of the search for them, which the Court considers insufficient.
“The commission cannot merely state that it does not hold the requested documents but must provide credible explanations enabling the public and the court to understand why those documents cannot be found”, the Court said.
It is unclear whether the text messages have actually been deleted, but the court ruled that the European Commission must now either disclose the conversations, or at least provide a more detailed and credible explanation as to why they cannot be disclosed. In a statement, the European Commission said it would “adopt a new decision providing a more detailed explanation”.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s handling of secret text messages with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is now under scrutiny in a court case that threatens to destroy her political legacy and further erode confidence in the EU’s decision-making process.
Tomorrow, the EU General Court will rule on whether the European Commission broke the law by refusing to release text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Bourla during negotiations on a controversial COVID-19 vaccine deal worth billions.
The ruling is expected to further undermine confidence in von der Leyen’s leadership, which is already heavily criticized for its abuse of power and centralization of decision-making. Among other things, the case concerns whether text messages should be classified as official documents and thus subject to EU transparency rules.
The case was initiated by The New York Times and its former Brussels correspondent, who took the matter to court after the Commission’s decision to refuse to publish the text messages in 2022.
In an interview with the NYT in 2021, Bourla revealed that he and von der Leyen had built up a “deep trust” through their text message negotiations. The agreement, which was concluded in May 2021, meant that the EU purchased up to 1.8 billion doses of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID vaccine – the largest single vaccine purchase during the COVID crisis.
– This court ruling could mark a turning point for transparency in the EU.When it comes to key decisions, particularly those affecting public health, secrecy should be avoided, said Shari Hinds, EU policy director at Transparency International.
“The elephant who wasn’t in the room”
In 2022, EU Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly (2013–2025) ruled that the Commission had committed serious administrative errors by not even searching for the text messages. She called it a “wake-up call” for the EU institutions and said that transparency had declined during von der Leyen’s tenure.
– Information is being held back for political reasons and that culture comes from the top, O’Reilly told Politico in 2023, also criticizing von der Leyen’s absence during the trial:
– The elephant who wasn’t in the room. The one person who could tell us everything wasn’t there.
The European Commission has repeatedly refused to comment on the case, but an official claimed at a press conference that the vaccine agreements were negotiated with the full support of the member states.
“Transparency must be a priority”
The court has previously criticized the Commission’s censorship of the vaccine contracts, large parts of which have been classified as confidential on the grounds of commercial interests.
Tilly Metz, a Green MEP, was one of many who soon wondered who or what was behind von der Leyen’s reluctance to share the information.
– She gets bad advice there. If you want the public to be confident and trust the politicians and what they do – and the contacts they do with industry – you have to put the focus on transparency.
This week will test the strength of EU institutions — especially the European Court of Justice — in the case of Ursula von der Leyen’s secret #Pfizer texts, and what Member States will do if it’s proven she withheld key information. If Ursula von der Leyen stays in office with… https://t.co/sxnuHEuvVX
During a hearing in November 2023, judges expressed skepticism about the Commission’s refusal to hand over the text messages. When the Commission’s lawyers finally acknowledged that the messages existed, they were met with laughter in the courtroom.
– We do not deny that they exist, said Commission lawyer Paolo Stancanelli during the hearing. He defended the Commission’s actions by arguing that the text messages were not relevant to the contract negotiations – a claim that the judges sharply questioned.
One judge, José Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, ruled that the Commission had not taken “adequate and diligent measures” to justify the secrecy, while another, Paul Nihoul, criticized the “relatively confused” dossier.
The pressure on von der Leyen is increasing further through an investigation by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which is looking into how the vaccine purchases were handled. In March, EPPO chief Laura Codruța Kövesi also confirmed that Commission officials had been questioned.
The EPPO is refraining from commenting on ongoing investigations, but the case risks further increasing mistrust in von der Leyen’s leadership and is expected to make it even more difficult for her to hold together an already deeply divided EU alliance.
Yesterday, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth strongly criticized left-wing liberal so-called diversity and inclusion programs within the military and reiterated the message that there is no future for such destructive phenomena within the US Armed Forces.
In a speech delivered at the Special Operations Forces Week conference, the defense secretary declared that climate alarmism, LGBTQ lobbying, and vaccine mandates are over, and that from now on, the focus will be solely on issues that are actually relevant to the military.
– No more pronouns, no more climate change obsession, no more emergency vaccine mandates, and no more dudes in dresses.
– We’re done with that shit, Hegseth continued.
BREAKING Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has a message for the entire World:
Hegseth’s statements follow a US Supreme Court ruling that gives the green light to the Trump administration’s efforts to strengthen the military’s focus by restricting the participation of transgender people in the armed forces.
The decision is based on an executive order signed in January, shortly after Donald Trump took office, with the aim of ensuring what the administration describes as an effective and unified defense force.
“The dumbest phrase in military history”
The Nordic Times has previously highlighted Hegseth’s views on diversity programs in the US military and how he condemned the left-liberal rhetoric previously used by the military leadership.
– I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is ‘our diversity is our strength’, Hegseth explained at a meeting with Defense Department employees at the Pentagon.
– I think our strength is our unity, our strength is our shared purpose, regardless of our background, regardless of how we grew up, regardless of our gender, regardless of our race, he continued, promising to do everything in his power to remove left-wing activist influence from the army.
The COVID vaccine AeroVax is not to be injected – but inhaled according to a method that will be tested in Canada with government funding. This is despite previous vaccines being linked to millions of reported side effects and vaccine injuries, including heart muscle inflammation, blood clots, and sudden deaths.
At McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, researchers have launched a phase 2 study of a new COVID vaccine that is not administered by injection but is instead inhaled.
The vaccine, named ChAd-triCoV/Mac, will now be tested on 350 participants from across the country, with $8 million in government funding, and researchers say they hope the new vaccine will provide stronger protection against infection than previous injection-based vaccines.
– While the current, needle-based COVID-19 vaccines have prevented a tremendous amount of death and hospitalization, they haven’t really changed a lot of people’s experience with getting recurrent infections, claims Fiona Smaill, professor in the Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine and one of the study’s leaders.
– We’re looking to change that by providing robust protection directly at the site of infection, she declares.
Targets three virus proteins
The new vaccine differs from previous COVID vaccines in several ways. In addition to being administered as an aerosol inhalation, it targets three different proteins in the structure of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. According to the researchers, this should improve protection against any future variants of COVID.
When a vaccine is inhaled, the body’s immune system reacts differently than when it is injected, which McMasters claims is more effective in preventing the infection itself.
Results from preclinical studies, together with unpublished data from the phase 1 study, suggest that the inhaled vaccine elicits a stronger immune response than traditional injections because it targets the airways where the virus first enters the body.
For those already vaccinated – but not recently ill
AeroVax is intended for people who have already received at least three doses of an mRNA vaccine. To participate in the study, participants must not have had COVID-19 or been vaccinated in the three months prior to registration. Participants must be between 18 and 65 years of age, free of lung disease, and able to attend all on-site testing sessions.
The study includes 350 participants from across Canada. Two-thirds will receive the vaccine and one-third a placebo. None of the participants know which group they belong to, which the researchers say is crucial for an objective evaluation.
– Randomization allows for objective comparison between those who received the vaccine and those who didn’t, which can tell us a lot about the level of protection the vaccine could provide and its side effects, Smaill continues.
Canadian Government Begins Testing Inhaled Covid mRNA ‘AeroVax’
“The Canadian government has begun ramping up testing for a chilling new Covid mRNA “AeroVax” that seeks to overcome “vaccine hesitancy” by using aerosols to “vaccinate” the general public.
The study is led by researchers at McMaster’s Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, and all development – from laboratory design to testing – is taking place in Canada.
– Every medicine or vaccine that we use and trust today has at one point gone through similar clinical trials processes, says Matthew Miller, director of the institute and a member of the research team.
– This is a highly regulated process with extensive oversight that ensures the safety of participants and will generate critical data to inform the next steps in development, he adds.
If the results are promising, the researchers plan to move on to a Phase 3 study with a larger group of participants – a step toward approval and market introduction.
Previous COVID vaccines were usually administered with a syringe. Photo: Canstockphoto
Millions of side effects
In this context, it is worth mentioning that since the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines began, millions of side effects and vaccine injuries, including deaths, have been reported globally – ranging from fever and nerve damage to blood clots, heart muscle inflammation, and sudden death.
Young men have shown an increased risk of heart inflammation, which has led to certain vaccines being withdrawn or restricted in several countries, and many have come forward to testify about long-term vaccine injuries that affect their ability to work and their quality of life – but their stories have been silenced or dismissed by the healthcare system.
Critics argue that authorities and vaccine manufacturers prioritized rapid distribution over transparency and safety, and that the long-term effects are still very poorly understood.
The vaccine is also believed to have had virtually no effect on the spread of infection, and US health authorities were eventually forced to admit that vaccinated people could carry as much of the virus as unvaccinated people. In Sweden, too, healthcare providers concluded that the vaccine did not stop the spread of COVID-19.
