Switzerland No Longer Recommends Covid Jabs, Declares that All Liability Rests w/Doctors

In a surprising move, the Federal Health Agency quietly moved towards a kind of resolution of the jab conundrum; while a good thing, it's also a far cry from any kind of reckoning

Well, this Holy Week is certainly different from last year’s. In a surprising move earlier this week, the Swiss Federal Health Agency (Bundesgesundheitsamt, BAG) declared (my translation, emphases):

In general, no Covid-19 vaccination is recommended in spring/summer 2023. Persons who are particularly at risk may receive vaccination after individual clarification [with their GP]…

Almost all persons in Switzerland are vaccinated and/or have undergone Covid-19. Their immune system has dealt with the coronavirus accordingly. In spring/summer 2023, the virus will probably circulate less. The current virus variants also cause rather mild disease. For autumn 2023, the vaccination recommendation will be evaluated again and adjusted accordingly.

I’d call that a start, in particular as the ‘original’ shots are ‘targeting’ a pathogen (the Wuhan strain) that is no longer among us; also, the ‘bivalent boosters’ are addressing another strain that hasn’t been much around as of late.

More from the BAG:

Covid-19 vaccination is currently not recommended for people who are particularly at risk. However, they can receive a vaccination after individual clarification with your doctor. Vaccination can be useful in individual cases because it improves protection against severe illness for several months. This applies regardless of the total number of vaccinations you have already received.

Well, what can I say about this? Still stupid, but at least no longer completely unhinged.

People who are particularly at risk include:

• People aged 65 and over

• People aged 16 and over with a chronic illness

• People aged 16 and over with trisomy 21

• Pregnant women

I still don’t understand why these categories are there, as there’s little, if any data on particularly these groups (and none in the ‘trials’).

What I consider particularly appalling is the following section:

If your doctor recommends the Covid 19 vaccination, the following applies:

Vaccination Timing: Covid-19 vaccination may be given from 6 months after the last vaccination or from 6 months after a known infection with the coronavirus. Other vaccinations with inactivated vaccines can be given at the same time as, before or after a Covid-19 vaccination. [as if it wouldn’t matter if one has undergone infection; do we do the same with, e.g., measles?]

Vaccine: It is preferable to be vaccinated with a variant-adapted (bivalent) mRNA vaccine or with the protein-based vaccine from Novavax. It does not matter with which vaccine the previous vaccinations were made. Monovalent mRNA vaccines also continue to provide good protection against severe courses with hospital admissions. [authorities provide no data or clinical evidence]

Important: Pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as people with a severely weakened immune system should be vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.

Yet, the Swiss wouldn’t be themselves if they didn’t think about money:

Who pays for the vaccination?

Those who wish to be vaccinated without a doctor’s recommendation (e.g., before a trip) can receive the vaccination, but must pay for it themselves.

What applies to persons at high-risk?

As a vulnerable person, you may receive a vaccination after individual diagnosis with your primary care doctor. A vaccination recommended by your doctor is free of charge for you and is covered by health insurance [Grundversicherung].

And thus we’re arriving at the heart of the matter: what about liability?

Switzerland Holds Doctors Liable for Adverse Events

Covid-19 vaccination is subject to conventional liability rules as other medicinal products or vaccines. In case of vaccine damage, the vaccine manufacturer (product liability), the vaccinating agency (contract liability or state liability), and, subsidiarily, the federal government are liable.

Well, it’s good to learn that the Swiss are thinking about this also in terms of clarification. Moreover, further particulars are revealing:

Compensation for vaccination damage by the Swiss Confederation is only possible in the case of vaccinations that were recommended or ordered by the authorities. Compensation, however, may only be granted by the Swiss Confederation if the damage is not covered elsewhere (‘subsidiary liability’). [line break added]

This means that a vaccine-injured person is only entitled to compensation if the damage has not already been covered, for example, by the vaccine manufacturer (product liability), the medical doctor administering vaccination (medical liability) or an insurance company (social or private insurance).

Possible compensation by the Swiss Confederation thus aims to mitigate the consequences for affected persons if third parties (e.g., the vaccine-administering doctor or the manufacturer) are not liable. Any such compensation application to the Swiss Confederation is examined in each individual case. [i.e., good luck proving jab damage]

Bottom Lines

Well, in the absence of a clear reckoning (Aufarbeitung) by the judicial system, this is about as good as it gets.

While I suspect the information provided on various issues, including fertility—Swiss authorities claim that modRNA injection ‘has no bearing on fertility’—will change more often (and quietly) in the future, at least we learn of one possible way ‘forward’ with respect to these products:

The Swiss call it ‘subsidiary liability’, by which is meant that there is a staggered chain of responsibility, with ‘the state’ only looking at your claim as a matter of last resort.

As we learned last summer in Austria (see here), as governments entered into onerous—frivolous—contracts with Big Pharma absolving the latter from all liability, politicians don’t want to be the ones holding that particular bag.

Hence, the de facto codification of these liability rules: if the state shields Big Pharma from liability and doesn’t want to assume that responsibility itself, the weakest link is: the doctors.

It is highly unlikely that Swiss doctors will continue injecting their countrymen, if only for the combination of the following three reasons:

• No general recommendation means the state absolves itself from even the possibility of taking any kind of responsibility

• Since Big Pharma cannot be taken to court (as of now), both the gov’t and Big Pharma will throw the doctors under the bus; given Switzerland’s private healthcare industry, this means that primary care physicians will also be left in the cold by insurance corporations

• Finally, those who still wish to ‘get vaccinated’ will have to pay for the jabs themselves, which further decreases the willingness to do so, to say nothing about the doctors who now know that it is them who will be liable for any damage

All told, a kind of ‘silver lining’, and while I think that the second point—the impossibility of taking Big Pharma to court—will change at some point in the future, this is about as good as it gets.

After breaking just about any law on the books by ‘rescuing’ Credit Suisse two weeks ago, the Swiss authorities are providing clear(er) indications about vaxx damages.

Still, let’s not let our guard down:

If a wave of infection were to emerge in spring/summer 2023, the vaccination recommendation would be adjusted.