Without dialogue no security
“Corona-era” – urgent need of clarification
by Dr med. Sabine Vuilleumier*
(26 April 2024) The message of the symposium was clear: the next unknown pathogen must be dealt with in a scientifically sound and humane way. This applies even following its emergence, when much is still unknown in terms of its spread potential, transmission routes, danger to humans and treatment options. To achieve this goal, a thorough analysis of the past “corona-era” is urgently needed. What was done well can be retained, what was excessive or even harmful must be handled differently in the interests of all.
“Corona – fakes and facts”
At the 1st Swiss Symposium on Health Policy Review and Outlook on 6 and 7 April in Bern, general practitioner Dr Daniel Beutler gave the floor to experts from medicine and science, law, society, the media, the church, and many civil organisations. In his introduction, he called on the media representatives present to help establish the truth. There is no official reappraisal of the “Corona-era” in sight. However, the organisers will not let up in their efforts.
In spring 2021, Dr Beutler was critical of the mRNA vaccinations.1 To date, their proven problematic consequences, such as autoimmune diseases and cancer, have not been systematically recorded and evaluated. However, this is essential if more people are not to be harmed. This was one of the demands that was echoed by experts from various fields during the day.
Information and food for thought from the first three areas are presented below. Listening to the presentations in the recording of the symposium is highly recommended.2
Area 1: Medicine and science
Prof. Dr Paul Vogt was on the front line at the University Hospital Zurich as Head of Cardiac Surgery during the first and second waves of 2020/21. The USZ was the “last resort” for seriously ill Covid patients, and the doctors did a lot of things right, neither giving artificial respiration too early nor omitting to administer antibiotics. Mortality was high, patients died because of the virus. It is not true that Covid was no worse than the flu – at least in the beginning.
Since 1965 “Gain-of-function” research has been carried out on the coronavirus. For Prof Vogt, the question of whether Switzerland was involved in the construction of the virus remains unanswered. His proposal to the Federal Council to review the effectiveness of decades-old, inexpensive drugs against Sars-CoV-2 was negatively commented on and dismissed by the Federal Council and the Covid-19 Task Force in spring 2020; however, a good 9,000 people in Switzerland died from Covid-19 in 2020. The media, authorities, and the federal task force, made up of pharmaceutical lobbyists, were ultimately interested with forcing the emergency approval of the mRNA vaccination for financial reasons. If cheaper drugs had been approved, this emergency authorisation would not have been possible.
Dr Thomas Binder, who has been working as a cardiologist in his own practice for 22 years, holds a doctorate in virology and immunology. He emphasised the proven medical practice that has been turned upside down in connection with Sars-CoV-2: until now, a patient with symptoms of a viral infection has been treated as an outpatient. Antibiotics were prescribed in the event of an additional bacterial infection. If the infection was severe, the doctor would hospitalise the patient and only there would the pathogen be identified in search for the right treatment. Now, however, there has been a “PCR test epidemic”, every time patients had a sore throat they are tested, they are sent home, and the use of antibiotics has dropped by 50%.
According to Dr Binder, there has been no relevant transmission of viruses from people without symptoms to others. Hygiene and self-isolation of sick people would have been sufficient to contain the spread of the respiratory virus; “anti-social distancing” and other measures had been unnecessary and harmful.
Prof Konstantin Beck, health economist at the University of Lucerne, expressed his appreciation that it was possible to speak openly at the symposium, “even” in the presence of a former Federal Councillor (Ueli Maurer). He pleaded for reconciliation between the existing camps, saying that hardened fronts needed to be broken down. As a rule, everyone argued and acted based on the information available to them. His latest book entitled “WHO cares? Die Schweizer Pandemiepolitik und der Einfluss der WHO – ein populärwissenschaftlicher Positionsbezug” (Edubook, 2024) [WHO cares? Swiss pandemic policies and the influence of WHO – a popular scientific position] should help to overcome a deep division in Swiss society.
Dr Martin Sailer, neurosurgeon, and molecular biologist used the example of a 39-year-old patient who developed “spikeopathy” two years after being vaccinated to raise many questions that urgently need clarification.
Area 2: Law
Lawyer and moderator Andrea Staubli recalled the importance of the separation of powers. Since 1848, the Federal Assembly (National Council and Council of States) has been the “supreme power of the Confederation”, elected by the people and accountable to them. However, the legislature decided to dismiss itself in the third week of the 2020 spring session and thus failed to fulfil its duty to protect the population. This has given the executive, the Federal Council, more power. Citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms – rights of defence against the state – were massively restricted.
In his usual committed and knowledgeable manner, lawyer Philipp Kruse argued in favour of a legal reappraisal of the coronavirus era. As an intelligence officer in the airport regiment, he had learnt to constantly reassess risks. However, a review of the coronavirus measures did not take place during the “special situation” (28 February 2020 to 31 March 2022). The question arises as to whether state arbitrariness prevailed during this time instead of the principle of legality. The speaker emphasised that the intrusive effect of the measures was very strong, but that their justification was weak. The criminal complaint filed by a team of lawyers against Swissmedic, the Swiss regulatory and supervisory authority for medicinal products and medical devices (available at corona-anzeige.ch), is a good opportunity for Parliament for a reappraisal of the coronavirus era.
Ralph Studer, lawyer, and journalist at Stiftung Zukunft CH, drew attention to the current revision of the Swiss Epidemics Act (EpG). The revision process was initiated on 19 June 2020, and the preliminary draft already includes content from the drafts of the WHO treaties (pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations). These contain provisions whose benefits are by no means proven. They could lead to a shift of power in favour of the Federal Council and thus to a permanent weakening of the separation of powers and the legal protection of citizens against unnecessary and disproportionate measures.
The consultation process was completed on 22 March 2024, and the bill will soon be referred to Parliament to be discussed. Ralph Studer recommended to challenge the federal parliamentarians professionally to take an in-depth look at the EpG.
Area 3: Politics
As moderator, Samuel Kullmann, political scientist, and Bernese Great Councillor (EDU), thanked former Federal Councillor Ueli Maurer for his presence since the start of the symposium in the morning. Born in 1950, he completed a commercial apprenticeship, became a municipal councillor in his home municipality in 1978, later a cantonal councillor, then a National Councillor, Federal Councillor and President of the Swiss Confederation in 2013 and 2019.
Ueli Maurer corrected the widespread opinion of the Federal Council’s power to take emergency action: the authorities had recommended emergency action to the Federal Council, but from today’s perspective based on incorrect or incomplete foundations. The Federal Council had to trust the administration, as it could not possibly work through all the 150-200 items of business to be dealt with each week itself. It had assumed that there was extreme urgency. The cantons, who were able to comment on everything, tightened the Federal Council’s guidelines, as did the parliamentarians. Decisions had to be made quickly, as experts warned of a possible 40,000 deaths. The fear was palpable, and the Federal Council had to act. Its members had wanted to be the first to be vaccinated.
Ueli Maurer raised the question of how Switzerland could get out of the “40:60 mindset”.3 He was sceptical about the measures and had therefore already been disinvited from lectures twice. It is important to approach each other and engage in dialogue, but also to make your voice heard.
Maurer revealed interesting facts from inside the Federal Palace: GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation) is one of 150 other international organisations to benefit from the Host State Act4 passed in 2007. The foundation was co-founded by Bill and Melinda Gates and has enjoyed immunity and tax advantages in Switzerland since 2009.5 The dutiful taxpayers wonder what they are doing wrong ...
Simone Machado, a city councillor and lawyer from Bern, claimed that she had been marginalised by the left as a left-wing green politician. She took action and was ruled right by the Federal Court in Lausanne that the government of the canton of Bern had exceeded the limits of what was permissible by imposing a de facto ban on demonstrations in 2021. She argued that the media should relinquish their role as the government’s mouthpiece.
Dr Beutler had also invited Urs Hans, an organic farmer from the very beginning and President of “Public Eye on Science”,6 as a steadfast personality. Under the title of his presentation “First the cattle, then the children”, he related the time of the cattle disease BSE to today’s mRNA products, which are also to be administered to children. In keeping with the purpose of his association: “Public Eye on Science” makes science transparent and knowledge accessible to a broad public. Only knowledgeable people are empowered and can exercise their democratic rights.’
For the remaining presentations, please refer to the recording (see endnote 2).
Conclusion
The organisers have succeeded in bringing to the stage findings and opinions that were previously relegated to the conspiracy camp in an atmosphere of mutual understanding. The symposium highlighted a great need for discussion and research, which calls for further events. These are already planned. Obvious undesirable developments must be stopped, and the primacy of a science committed to the truth and the common good must be reasserted.
| * Dr med. Sabine Vuilleumier is a specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy FMH and a contributor to «Swiss Standpoint». |
(Tanslation “Swiss Standpoint”)
1 https://irp.cdn-website.com/a5ce7147/files/uploaded/Brücken-Metapher.pdf
2 https://live.eventfabrikbern.ch/88146490125104831711612095
3 40% of Swiss citizens who voted were twice against the Covid-19-act, 60% in favour. This formed the basis for the measures adopted by the Federal Council.
