Discover more from Die Fackel 2.0
Covid (?) in Austria: Health Minister Rauch's Answers Show Corruption by Big Pharma, Indicate Doctors are Liable for Harm, incl. 'Breakthrough Infections'
Further highlights incl. indications of an AE incidence rate/shots administered that may be as high as 13-14% for mRNA injections
By now, you’ve probably read about this elsewhere, e.g., over at Paul Craig Robert’s website, or at Steve Kirsch’s and Superspreader’s substacks, with the latter offering a kind of compilation of bespoke headlines.
It is my turn now to weigh in on this matter as this event didn’t fall out of the blue sky.
Thanks for reading Die Fackel 2.0! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
It is, in fact true, that Health Minister Rauch is now blaming Covidistan’s doctors, threatening them with penalty fees of € 7,500 for failing to report injection injuries, as well as € 14,000 in fees for repeat offenders. These are per-incident penalties and these don’t involve any legal penalties or damages.
So, this is a potentially life-threatening change of course for Covidistan’s physicians, that much is true. Yet, as always, there’s considerably more than first meets the eye.
For the record, here’s Health Minister Rauch’s answers to the enquiry by Freedom Party MP Gerald Hauser, courtesy of alternative media outlet Wochenblick (for legacy media doesn’t deem this news ‘fit to print’…) The document is dated 3 June 2022, and it contains a total of 11 pages. In the following, I shall summarise the main issues and provide you with ‘the missing’ particulars.
Here’s Health Minister Rauch’s Full Answer
Question 1: what information must a physician provide?
Answer: a physician’s obligations include a careful weighing of risks and benefits, which, according to a Supreme Court Ruling, also pertains to vaccinations (rulings incl. 5 Ob 1524/94, 7 Ob 12/97h; RdM 1977, 22). In addition, prior to vaccination, informed consent must be given by the patient, which implies accurate and objective information provided by the physician.
Q2: what happens if a physician does not a) objectively and/or b) sufficiently inform the patient?
A: both adjectives ‘objective’ and ‘sufficient’ derive primarily from the informational needs and requests of the patient, hence we note that if a physician provides insufficient information or information that is not up-to-date, this would constitute malpractice (eine Verletzung der Berufspflichten).
Doing so may entail administrative and/or disciplinary consequences, as well as begs the question of [the physician’s] liability.
Q3: what information or educational opportunities are available to physicians so that they may objectively and sufficiently provide information to the vaccines?
A: there is a continuing education program of the Austrian Medical Association (Österreichische Ärztekammer) for practicing physicians, which is mandatory. These are run by DFP, which offered such 273 dedicated ‘vaccination’ training programs between 2020 and 2022; of these, 143 [i.e., more than half] were dedicated to Covid-19 vaccines. In addition, there are many other training and continuing education offers, which is disseminated among physicians via newsletters by the Austrian Medical Association.
Sidenote: these offers are a veritable ‘Trojan Horse’, for these are funded by Big Pharma, and it’s hard to see the massive conflicts of interests revolving around the fact that the vaccine manufacturers are also offering ‘training’ sessions.
As Wochenblick exposed during the past half-year (here, here, here, here, and here), these ‘training sessions’ are funded by Big Pharma players Sanofi, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Valneva, and Johnson & Johnson, as the website by the offering institution DFP indicates, to say nothing about the outright corruption of key régime personnel and its many ties to Big Pharma.
Q4-7: were patients objectively and sufficiently informed about alternatives to vaccination? What was done to follow-up suspected vaccine adverse events (AE)? What was done to inform policy about these AEs? What did you do personally to ensure most, if not all, such AEs would be discussed publicly?
A: implementation of the vaccinations is done by the states (Länder). Carrying out vaccinations is regulated via the national vaccination schedule (Impfplan Österreich), and ‘I must expect that the country’s physicians are acting accordingly and based on the current state of science’.
Drug safety is ensured via bespoke Pharmaceutics Act (Arzneimittelgesetz) and the Pharmacovigilance Regulation (PhVO 2013). §4 of the latter mandates that suspected AEs must be forwarded to the Federal Healthcare Safety Authority (Bundesamt für Sichrheit im Gesundheitswesen, BASG). Physicians and healthcare workers are legally obliged to notify the BASG, in addition to the option of patients and their relatives doing so on a voluntary basis.
An adverse reaction is any reaction to the vaccine that is harmful and unintended. In the case of vaccines, this also includes the absence of an effect. BASG has updated all relevant information on its website in connection with suspected AEs to make all relevant information easily accessible.
Q8: in cases where vaccine-related AEs are possible, are physicians obliged to enquire about a patient’s vaccination status?
A: no, but according to §49 Ärztegesetz (the Federal Physicians’ Act of 1998) all physicians are required to record all indications and the like in a patient’s dossier. In the case of suspected AEs after vaccination, which includes the absence of efficacy, physicians ae obliged to immediately inform the BASG (pursuant to §75 a and g of the Pharmaceutics Act).
Q9 and 13: please specify the available training and educational options available to physicians with respect to this notification obligation.
A: lots of boilerplate blablabla, albeit the underreporting of so-called ‘breakthrough infections’ is mentioned; this is supposedly monitored by another federal agency (see their quite convoluted website here).
Q10 and 11: what measures did the Health Ministry undertake to swiftly investigate the suspected AEs of the Covid vaccines? What does the BASG do follow-up on any AE report, in particular how long does this take and what aid is available to those affected?
A: all procedures are ‘harmonised across Europe’, which means all such AE reports are checked, and if they check out, are forwarded to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the EU’s and their partners’ FDA equivalent.
Q12: what did the Health Ministry do ensure physicians’ compliance with the legal obligation to report suspected injection-related AEs?
See answers 4-7, 9, and 13 above.
Q14: what did the Health Ministry do to ensure the Austrian Medical Association enforces compliance of its members (i.e., Covidistan’s doctors) to fulfill their legal obligation to report all suspected AEs?
There is a legal mandate to report these AEs based on the Pharmaceutics Act, and it is expected that the Austrian Medical Association keeps its members informed about this.
See also answers to questions 4-7.
Q15: what did the Health Ministry do to ensure the Austrian Medical Association informs its members about their legal obligation to report the absence of effects, or non-efficacy, of the Covid vaccinations?
See answers to questions 4-7, 9, and 13. Note that there is data-correlation ongoing between the Electronic Population Registry and the e Vaccination Registry. [This is highly questionable, for there’s a ton of bespoke privacy issues involved, to say nothing of the fact that the régime does collect these data, but they are loath to mention it: I ‘wonder’ as to why…]
Q16: how often did it occur in recent years that physicians didn’t report on suspected vaccination-related AEs? If so, what were the penalties? More details on these cases, please.
A: this falls into the purview of the Austrian Medical Association, which holds that there are no data available on this. According to §194 of the Federal Physicians’ Act of 1998 it is furthermore forbidden to communicate such information to the public, hence there is no information available that may be shared.
So far, the Federal Healthcare Safety Authority (BASG) did not file any indictments based on §83 (1.14) of the Pharmaceutics Act.
Q17: there are estimates that a mere 6% of suspected AEs are ever reported to the BASG [which means: the under-reporting factor of this pharmacovigilance tool would be 94%, very much in line with the US-based Lazarus Study that held the URF in VAERS to be between 90-99%], and this means that the overwhelming majority of physicians violates their legal obligation to do so. What did the gov’t do in the past five years to ensure compliance? If, and what, did the Health Ministry communicate in this case to the Austrian Medical Association?
A: the BASG mentions this frequently ‘in lectures given in relevant settings (e.g., hospitals, pharmacists’ conferences, updates on pharmacovigilance, etc.)’, as this is important to arrive at risk/benefit ratios of pharmaceutical products, including vaccines. There is also participation in social media campaigns (#MedSafetyWeeks).
Q18: where all ‘breakthrough infections’ (i.e., the absence of an expected/advertised effect) of Covid-19 reported to the Federal Healthcare Safety Authority (BASG)? If not, why? If not, why didn’t those government employees or contractors who staff the Covid Hotline (1450, if you’re in Austria) forward these reports to the BASG? How many breakthrough infections have been reported so far?
A: all data is collated by AGES, the Agency for Health and Nutritional Safety, which one may find here.
Sidenote: this is extremely disingenuous of Mr. Rauch, for the website he linked to doesn’t contain any data on breakthrough infections. I checked for both German and English terms in both languages. So, it’s a classic roundabout move by the cabinet minister, and he should be indicted for spreading misinformation. What the AGES website does, however, is conflating injection-induced ‘immunological events’ with infection-deriving consequences; in addition, in their ‘study’ on vaccine effectiveness vs. Omicron, AGES—which, still, touts high VE—we may read (on p. 3-4, section ‘Limitations’) that it would be impossible to control the testing practices between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals; there is furthermore no data on the severity of Covid disease among study participants, which ‘renders it impossible to estimate the protective efficacy of the vaccine-induced or infection-(/vaccine-) induced [‘hybrid’] immunity in relation to severe COViD-19 disease progression’. So, the mantra-like sprouted notion that these products at least protect against severe disease are—entirely unfounded. As the ‘study’ merely compares double and triple-vaccinated people, it’s also a classic piece of ‘garbage in, garbage out’, which is nothing new, as I explained looking at earlier variations of the same study by the same authors in late autumn 2021.
In this section of Mr. Rauch’s answer one will also find the notorious passages quoted in some international outlets indicated above: relevant penalties according to §83 (1.14) of the Pharmaceutics Acts are € 7,500 for one-time offenders and up to € 14,000 for repeat offenders.
MP Hauser specifically asked if knowledge about any of these problems—which includes ‘breakthrough infections’—would constitute malfeasance on part of public authorities, i.e., punishable offences?
Mr. Rauch answered that
the interpretation of the legal code is not within the purview of my ministerial department.
I hold this to be equally disingenuous, but hardly surprising. Back in early December 2021, I ask the Austro-Covidian Department of Justice the same question:
I would like to learn about the legal consequences of possible malfeasance on part of physicians…specifically related to
1) what to do if a physician repeatedly suggests a medical intervention with a product whose manufacturer holds that there are no safety data available?
2) Who is liable for harm and potential AEs?
Of course, I got the same roundabout treatment, for the DoJ told me that they ‘cannot offer information on how the law is interpreted’ and that I may contact the Bar Association of employ a lawyer.
I did contact the Bar Association of Vienna, though, which also told me that I should get in touch with their free legal advice (which I didn’t do for lack of time back then), but I doubt that the answers would have been different.
I have been in touch with MP Hauser, though, and made my old enquiries available to him and his staffers; he acknowledged their receipt personally, thanked me, and we shall see if he can put them to good use.
When I wrote the message, I was thinking of BioNTech/Pfizer’s product information on Comirnaty that holds, in section 8.1, that ‘Available data on COMIRNATY administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.’
Section 8.2 on Lactation holds that ‘It is not known whether COMIRNATY is excreted in human milk’ (it appears to be, as more than 5,000 AE reports in the EUDRA Vigilance—the EMA’s VAERS system—of infants aged 0-2 years in 2021 alone indicates, which includes multiple references to problems related to, if not deriving from, breastfeeding by injected mothers), on which you may read up on here:
Also, section 8.4 on Pediatric Use holds, in Pfizer’s words that:
The safety and effectiveness of COMIRNATY in individuals younger than 16 years of age have not been established.
Check out section 8.5 on Geriatric Use, which also explains that
No overall differences in safety or effectiveness were observed between these recipients and younger recipients
So, there’s apparently no safety data on any of these talking points, which renders the issue of liability and legal responsibility for this snake oil highly relevant.
Note, finally, that the physician I meant was then-Health Minister Mückstein, a licensed physician who, I think, should be investigated for spreading misinformation and, as the author of the Injection Mandate, indicted for inflicting uncounted harm on the population.
Back to Mr. Rauch’s answers for one more moment, for in his answer to Q19 on just how many AEs were reported to the Federal Healthcare Safety Authority (BASG), he produced the below graph:
Note the crappy quality, which may be incidental (I doubt that copy + paste is the strong suit of whoever wrote this answer for Mr. Rauch), but there were 83,670 such AE reports filed with the BASG. Of these, 30,765 (or about 37%) were filed by patients, which is the yellow-ish column.
The graph itself is telling: there is neither an explanation of the orange category (MAH, as per §75j of the Pharmaceutics Act) nor is there a number given. Interestingly, the grey column, labelled ‘healthcare professionals’, indicates that about half of these AEs were filed by them, which is a number (roughly 40,000 AEs) that. Yet, according to Mr. Rauch’s own statement on underreporting of such AEs by 94%, these totals of 83,670 constitute some 6% of the possible AEs, and if we multiply the number given accordingly, we’re in the ballpark of almost 1.4m AE.
In the context of the 18,626,548 injections administered so far in Covidistan (as of 4 July 2022, the latest available data provided by Mr. Rauch’s ministry), a back-of-the-envelope calculation using the adjusted URF (1,394,500 suspected AEs) would return an AE rate of between 13-14%.
Q20-21 are answered by Mr. Rauch by pointing to answers to Q18 and 19 above.
Q23 pertains to possible redundancies of AE reporting, on which Mr. Rauch states that ‘these data are not collected’.
It’s way worse than we assumed.
All the problems we’ve observed elsewhere—underreporting in pharmacovigilance (in Austria: 94%), funding of bespoke ‘vaccination information’ by Big Pharma, bad or no data collection, disingenuity and, possibly, outright criminal behaviour by both physicians’ and government officials—has now been admitted to by the Health Minister.
I don’t expect any consequences to come out of this, even though I would say the above official ministerial reply is damning, in particular as we now have it in writing by a ‘Western’ cabinet official that…
Physicians are liable for adverse health outcomes, including
‘Breakthrough infections’ may actually be something that the physician who administered the injection be liable for damages in a court of law (we need but one judge to allow discovery in a courtroom).
My back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that the mRNA products used almost exclusively in Austria come with a possible AE incidence rate of more than 10%, which is absurd. Someone must pay for these decisions.
And the worst part is: none of this is unknown to you, dear reader.
So, please: if you know a lawyer and/or judge in Covidistan or elsewhere, please forward this information and ask what they intend to do.
I already asked my lawyer brother, but he’s way to brainwashed and useless.
My bespoke enquiry from December has been ignored, but I’ve made it available to MP Hauser; perhaps something will come out of this.
I shall also re-send an enquiry to the DoJ citing Mr. Rauch’s statement, and if anything comes out of it, I shall keep you posted.
Stay in the fight.
Thanks for reading Die Fackel 2.0! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.