EU Commission Admits That C-19 Vaxx Was Authorised w/o 'comprehensive data dossier'

As alt and legacy media get giddy about what they presume to be a gaffe, the devil is in the details: the EU Commission admits to be in violation of its own Product Liability Directive

I don’t know if you heard or read about this elsewhere (yet), but I’d like to draw attention to a seemingly odd exchange between a right-wing™ member of the EU Parliament, one Gerald Hauser, and the EU Commission, which occurred during the summer.

These are all original statements here, hence I added merely emphases and [snark].

---

Largest experiment in human history

Question for written answer E-002126/2025 to the EU Commission,
Rule 144, Gerald Hauser (PfE), 27 May 2025 [source]

On 20 November 2020, Nanette Cocero and Stella Kyriakides signed the advance purchase agreement for the BioNTech/Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine (SANTE/2020/C3/043-SI2.838335) on behalf of Pfizer and the Commission respectively. Pages 48 and 49 state that Member States are to accept that the long-term effects and efficacy of the vaccine are unknown and that unknown side effects may occur. In this legal contract, the Commission thus confirmed that the efficacy and safety of this new mRNA gene-based vaccine were not known. With the conditional authorisation of this completely inadequately tested gene-based vaccine on 21 December 2020, the Commission launched the largest experiment in human history, with 4.6 million [sic, I think that should be billions, but I’m unsure] doses having been administered worldwide. Vaccinated citizens were never informed of the uncertainties, meaning that the gene-based vaccines were administered without the necessary information and consents and were all in breach of the Nuremberg Code.

1. Did Stella Kyriakides sign this contract independently, without consulting the Commission? [me, I love a good blame game].

2. Did the entire Commission, including Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, jointly decided to sign the vaccine contract?

3. Why did the Commission not uphold the Treaty [which one?] and inform citizens—as stated in the contract—that the efficacy and safety of the gene-based vaccine were not guaranteed?

---

Intermission

Well, none of these questions are ‘new’ or don’t have answers; we are about to observe, in the EU Commission’s answer (reproduced below) that, which the jurist Georg Jellinek termed ‘the normative power of the factual’, isn’t too far from reality: MPE Hauser has not asked about things are unknown, hence questions are in order—about accountability and, yes, putting those who did this (let’s start with Von der Leyen) on trial.

Here’s the answer on behalf of the EU Commission.

---

Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission

Answer to the written enquiry E-002126/2025 to the EU Commission,
E-002126/2025(ASW), 27 Aug. 2025 [source]

The (Advance) Purchase Agreements for the supply of COVID-19 vaccines were neither negotiated nor signed independently. The negotiations were concluded in full transparency with the Member States and carried out by a Joint Negotiation Team[1].

This team reported regularly to a Vaccines Steering Board co-chaired by the Commission and a Participating Member State, which provided guidance.

When the final text of the contract was negotiated, the signature was executed by the Commissioner in charge, not independently, but after approval by the College [of Commissioners; note that the first paragraph states clearly that the Commission did so in cahoots with member-states].

Therefore, the process was based on a joint effort and collective decision-making [which makes the accountability part extra-hard: who holds ‘more’ of the blame?], both in the negotiation and the signature of the contracts [that, I think, only works, technically (legally) speaking, if there are supporting documents clearly outlining the collective responsibility alleged above].

The first COVID-19 vaccines were granted a conditional marketing authorisation (CMA), a specific type of marketing authorisation to facilitate access to medicines that fulfil an unmet medical need, including in emergency situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst a comprehensive data dossier is not yet available [this is the phrasing that has alt/legacy media getting extra-giddy about ‘they knew’ (that’s obvious), but I’d argue it’s besides the point].

It allows regulators to authorise such medicines as soon as sufficient data demonstrate that the medicine’s benefits outweigh its risks [hence that wording, e.g., ‘benefits continue to outweigh the risks’], with robust safeguards and controls in place post-authorisation: the marketing authorisation holder must fulfil specific obligations (e.g. conduct further studies and provide more data to confirm efficacy or safety [this is the key provision here: it’s an either/or phrasing, and that’s what should be focussed on in my view: you may EITHER get an ‘efficacious’ product OR a ‘save’ one, but manufacturers must not provide one ensuring, reasonably, both]) within defined timelines.

CMAs are valid for one year and can be renewed annually. If the specific obligations are fulfilled, CMAs can be converted in full marketing authorisation, as it happened for COVID-19 vaccines.

The updated product information[2] and assessment reports[3] of COVID-19 vaccines have always been made timely publicly available.

---

How Does ‘Collective Decision-Making’ Work™

Let’s briefly consider the footnoted content, esp. the information given in the Commission’s footnote 1, which links to this press release (!!!); emphases mine:

On 17 June [2020], the European Commission presented a European strategy to accelerate the development, manufacturing and deployment of vaccines against COVID-19. The EU Vaccines Strategy intends to ensure the production in Europe of qualitative, safe and efficacious vaccines, and to secure swift access to them for Member States and their populations…

Joint action at EU level is the surest, quickest and most efficient way of achieving these objectives. No Member State on its own has the capacity to secure the investment in developing and producing a sufficient number of vaccines. It is only through swift and unified action by the EU and its Member States that sufficient and speedy supplies of a safe and effective vaccine can be ensured.

Yeah, sure, loads of boilerplate blablabla, but the devil, as always, is in the details, and looking at said details is exactly what we’re going to do now as we’re going through the Q&A under the header ‘negotiation process’:

Are all Member States represented in the Steering Committee and in the Negotiation Team?

All Member States have endorsed the approach set out by the Vaccines Strategy and signed up to an agreement for its implementation [there must be such a document, then, with the signatures of gov’t officials from all member-states: they cannot hold that ‘the EU did it’]. As a result, all Member States are represented at the Steering Committee which discusses and reviews all aspects of the Advanced Purchase Agreement (APA) contracts before signature. The Committee appoints the members of the Joint Negotiation Team, which negotiates the APAs with the vaccines developers and reports to the Committee. The Member States comprising the Joint Negotiation Team are France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden and The Netherlands [this is who’s been in the lead]. All participants in these instances have been appointed [gov’t appointees’ names are known] by their Governments and have signed declarations of absence of conflict of interest and confidentiality [and we could haul their asses before investigatory committees and/or into court rooms].

Moving on, we learn a lot about the EU Commission’s intent at the time—and, I may add, why Brussels fought tooth and nail to prevent these contracts from ever seeing the light of day:

Will the Commission publish the contracts signed with pharmaceutical companies?

The focus for the Commission is the protection of public health and securing the best possible agreements with companies so that vaccines are affordable, safe and efficacious. Contracts are protected for confidentiality reasons, which is warranted by the highly competitive nature of this global market. This is in order to protect sensitive negotiations as well as business related information, such as financial information and development and production plans.

These ‘sensitive’ and otherwise ‘business related information’ is, in my view, due to the shady nature of the products pushed onto citizens. Hence I’ll repeat the key phrase from the EU Commission’s answer to Mr. Hauser’s enquiry: ‘whilst a comprehensive data dossier is not yet available’ when the Commission, in cahoots with member-states signed these agreements—this indicates that the ‘sensitive’ nature of said contracts is due to: no data was available on safety or efficacy.

Note that this exchange took place in October 2022 in the EU Parliament™.

Two years prior, the EU Commission ‘splained’ their decision to keep these documents secret in the following way:

Disclosing sensitive business information would also undermine the tendering process and have potentially far-reaching consequences for the ability of the Commission to carry out its tasks as set out in the legal instruments that form the basis of the negotiations [this is, in my view, the money paragraph: yes, shady, private negotiations™ breed corruption and foster problematic behaviour—but the key issue here is: the Commission considers its mandate legitimate as, at its bottom, there’s somewhere something to be found that at least passes the briefest of smell tests of plausibility]. All companies require that such sensitive business information remains confidential between the signatories of the contract. The Commission therefore has to respect the contracts it concludes with the companies.

Finally, the Commission is accountable towards the other European institutions and the European citizen [note the rank-ordering and the reification of ‘the European citizen’, which means ‘EU citizen’ and does not exist; what exists are citizens of European countries that are member-states of the EU—whatever such ‘EU citizenship’ exists does not relate anything like that which the Commission’s press release (!!!) alleges¹]. The Commission is acting in full compliance with all applicable rules regarding financial management, which can be subject to audit at a later stage.

That final sentence in this paragraph is equally important: by claiming that ‘we did everything by the book’ (doesn’t matter which one), hence it’s all legit (read with a mob don voice-over).

I’ve been telling you all along that to understand what the EU is, recourse to the post-Napoleonic Holy Alliance and its principle of legitimacy is paramount.²

Has the Commission made concessions on liability to the industry, in particular on indemnification for certain liabilities?

The Commission ensures that any agreement made to secure vaccines through the Vaccines Strategy will be fully compliant with EU law [get that: the Commission, whose authority derives from the treaties and whose raison d’être is to guard said treaties, promises to uphold them: another instalment of pandemic management by tautology]. The contracts the Commission is negotiating fully respect and protect citizens’ rights, in line with the Product Liability Directive.

Oh, let’s have a look at the Product Liability Directive—and the first thing we note is that this directive has been amended in 2024: I suppose we would have to apply the version that was in force in 2020, but for our purposes here, citing the current version will have to do (as we can’t go down that rabbit-hole right now). From the preamble:

(2) Liability without fault on the part of economic operators remains the sole means of adequately addressing the problem of fair apportionment of risk inherent in modern technological production.

If that is true, the Covid poison/death juices must be logically excluded as the issue of risk as defined by the Commission itself was unknown in 2020 and has been denied or at least outweighed by alleged benefits (which are, similarly, impossible to know if the risks are unknown).

(11) Compensation schemes outside the context of liability regimes, such as national health systems, social security schemes or insurance schemes, fall outside the scope of this Directive and should therefore not be precluded.

Nice lingo, but it also suggests one must go through nat’l compensation schemes first before eventually reaching the EU level; given that the former means nat’l vaccine injury compensation schemes, this literally adds insult to injury, esp. as the EU and the member-states engaged in ‘collective decision-making’, thus making a mockery of this wording.

(27) In so far as national law so provides, the right to compensation for injured persons should apply both to direct victims, who suffer damage directly caused by a defective product, and to indirect victims, who suffer damage as a result of the direct victim’s damage.

I submit that it may be possible to understand this to mean one officially recognised vaccine-injury should be enough to make the powers-that-be liable as higher costs associated with compensation is paid for by other taxpayers. (Note also that this is an insane provision for the most obvious reasons.)

The key point here appears to me—the following:

(31) The assessment of defectiveness should take into account the presentation of the product. However, warnings or other information provided with a product cannot be considered sufficient to make an otherwise defective product safe, since defectiveness should be determined by reference to the safety that the public at large is entitled to expect [now, that means even if the poison/death juice manufacturers listed all the risks (which they didn’t), they are liable]. Therefore, liability under this Directive cannot be avoided simply by listing all conceivable side effects of a product. When determining the defectiveness of a product, reasonably foreseeable use also encompasses misuse that is not unreasonable under the circumstances, such as the foreseeable behaviour of a user of machinery resulting from a lack of concentration or the foreseeable behaviour of certain user groups such as children [or EU officials lying about data or alleging benefits, such as the prevention of transmission or infection].

Lest we don’t have a common understanding of what the EU Commission means by ‘data’, here’s the pertinent definition pursuant to Article 2, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2022/868:

‘data’ means any digital representation of acts, facts or information and any compilation of such acts, facts or information, including in the form of sound, visual or audiovisual recording

Bottom Lines: quid custos ipsos custodiet?

So, to wrap this up for now, ‘whilst a comprehensive data dossier is not yet available’ at the time of the signing of the contracts, this does not absolve the manufacturer—or the EU Commission—from liability.

That is, if we take the EU Commission’s very own directives and statements literally.

The mere fact that these shenanigans have not led to anything even remotely resembling criminal investigations or prosecutorial referrals tells you everything you need to know about a few core aspects of the EU:

Every action taken by the EU is based on the treaties…and are hence referred to as primary law. The EU can only pass laws in the policy areas where the member states have authorised it to do so, via the EU treaties. This is known as the principle of conferral [technically, these treaties are enabling arrangements]…

The body of law that comes from the principles and objectives of the treaties is known as secondary law. These include legislative and non-legislative acts…including regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions.

Oh, look, directives, as in the EU Commission’s Product Liability Directive.

Directives set binding objectives upon EU member states to achieve a certain result, but leave them free to choose how to achieve these objectives.

Once adopted at EU level, EU member states must adopt measures to incorporate the directive into national law (transpose). National authorities must communicate these measures to the European Commission.

Transposition into national law must take place by the deadline contained by the directive (generally within 2 years). When a country does not transpose a directive, the Commission may initiate infringement proceedings.

Here you may obtain ‘more information’ about these Directives.

The main issue here is—given the way this is presented, the EU Commission may compel member-states to act in accordance to the EU Commission’s directives or other parts of secondary law.

The two main problems arising from this set-up, however, are these:

• What happens if, as it looks like, the EU Commission is in violation of its own (Product Liability) Directive?

• Even if you assume the (charitable) position that the EU Commission would then act and compel the violating legal person (itself) to adhere to its own (Product Liability) Directive, the fundamental problem with the separation of powers is obvious.

That is, this is obvious to everyone who doesn’t have a vested interest and/or ulterior motive to escape such proceedings.

You know, like the EU Commission that has now admitted to not having had adequate data, which is a breach of its own Directive.

The mere fact that no-one who would be in a position to do something™ about this blatant breach of EU primary law—the heads of gov’ts—is doing anything tells you everything you’d need to know about accountability and culpability of those acting in cahoots with the EU Commission.

Oh, lest I forget, it obviously does not matter if said EU member-state gov’ts changed since 2020.

It’s a quite big and chummy club, and the likes of you and I are not a part of them.

#abolish the EU

1. This is directly from the horse’s mouth ‘Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’

Article 20 (ex Article 17 TEC)

1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia:

   (a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

   (b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;

   (c) the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;

   (d) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.

These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the Treaties and by the measures adopted thereunder.

Once you spot the notion that the EU citizen is somehow ‘sovereign’ in the commonly understood sense of the term, that is,

the principle that the leaders of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political legitimacy.

2. No time to get into these historical weeds right now, but here’s the conventional wisdom as per Wikipedia:

The alliance was formed to instil the divine right of kings and Christian values in European political life, as pursued by Alexander I under the influence of his spiritual adviser Baroness Barbara von Krüdener. It was written by Emperor Alexander I of Russia and edited by Ioannis Kapodistrias and Alexandru Sturdza.^[3] Under the treaty European rulers would agree to govern as “branches” of the Christian community and offer mutual service.^[4] In the first draft, Emperor Alexander I made appeals to mysticism through a proposed unified Christian empire that was seen as disconcerting by the other monarchies. Following revision, a more pragmatic version of the alliance was adopted by Russia, Prussia, and Austria. The document was called “an apocalypse of diplomacy” by French diplomat Dominique-Georges-Frédéric Dufour de Pradt.^[3]

The agreement was at first secret, and mistrusted by liberals though liberalism was effectively restrained in this political culture until the Revolutions of 1848.^[4] About three months after the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, the monarchs of Catholic (Austria), Protestant (Prussia), and Orthodox (Russia) confession promised to act on the basis of “justice, love, and peace”, both in internal and foreign affairs, for “consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections”. The Alliance was quickly rejected by the United Kingdom (though George IV declared consent in his capacity as King of Hanover), the Papal States, and the Ottoman Empire. Lord Castlereagh, the British Foreign Secretary, called it “a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense”.^[5] Nonetheless, Britain participated in the Concert of Europe.^[6]

As a thought-experiment, you may, liberally (pun intended) use key EU terms, such as “four freedoms”, treaties, or the like substituting for the 200 year-old notions. Or you don’t have to, for the underlying ideas (sic) appear quite enduring.

Needless to say, the immediate consequences of said Holy Alliance included, among others (same source, by the way):

On 29 September 1818, Alexander, Emperor Francis I of Austria and King Frederick William III of Prussia met with the Duke of Wellington, Viscount Castlereagh and the Duc de Richelieu at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle to demand stern measures against university “demagogues”, which would be realized in the Carlsbad Decrees of the following year [i.e., state-organised, coordinated censorship vs. free speech]. At the Congress of Troppau in 1820 and the succeeding Congress of Laibach in 1821, Metternich tried to align his allies in the suppression of the Carbonari revolt against King Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies [not to put too fine a bit of lipstick on any pig, that revolt—carried by secret/underground associations that form the foundation of what is today called ‘the Italian mob’—was a bottom-up rebellion; the Great Powers had no problem supporting the Greek Revolution out of sheer vanity and personal sympathy deriving from ancient history: some things never change…]. The Quintuple Alliance met for the last time at the Congress of Verona in 1822 to advise against the Greek Revolution and to resolve upon the French invasion of Spain.

There’s of course so much to say, incl. ‘help– by Great Powers in what’s today called ‘institution-building’ (policing, bureaucracy) for nascent statelets, such as Greece or Serbia.

If I was to recommend useful reading materials, I think R.S. Alexander’s Europe’s Uncertain Path (2012) is perhaps the most thought-provoking one.

---