Image: CC-BY-4.0: © European Union 2020 – Source: EP
The European Parliament’s special committee put forward 274 points to be prepared for the next pandemic. Tenor: The EU passed the test (for its democracy). The vaccine came quickly and is safe and effective. In the next pandemic, however, more central control is needed. The draft is riddled with misinformation and historical revisionism.
With 274 findings, the EU Parliament wants to learn the lessons from Covid19 in order to be better prepared for the next pandemic. The report is a textbook on how to falsify history and how the EU should develop in the future. The health crisis was unprecedented, but the EU passed the test for its democracy.
The text is silent on the fundamental right not to be forced to be treated with a medicinal product. The “safe and effective” vaccine saved 250,000 lives. The certificate, with which citizens were massively restricted, is praised, as is the fight against disinformation. What can also be read clearly: Next time, the different states should cook less of their own soup. Instead, it needs more centralized management and guidance from above.
Two points off the mark to capture the historical revisionism practiced here. In point one, the committee writes:
“The European Parliament recognizes that the spread of COVID-19 has claimed millions of lives in Europe and the world, causing irreparable damage and that the EU, like the rest of the world, was unprepared to deal with this unprecedented health crisis and its combat shock waves that have hit many societies and economies around the world;
Point six is:
“The European Parliament underlines that in 2020 the world was unprepared to deal with the consequences of the COVID19 pandemic and Europe faced the most difficult socio-economic crisis since the Second World War.”
At this point, think of the judgment of Franz Allerberger, who, as AGES boss, made it clear in June 2021 that without a PCR test, very little of the so-called Covid 19 pandemic would have been felt. The “most difficult socio-economic crisis since World War II” was triggered by politics and its authoritarian lockdown restrictions. The consequences of this policy – keywords inflation and damage to health – can be felt on a daily basis.
Romanian MEP Christian Terhes had led the group of critical MEPs during Covid. Together with a handful of colleagues, he tried to take action against vaccination pressure and vaccination (also in the EU Parliament). In view of the first draft of “Findings on Covid-19”, he speaks of the “biggest corruption cover-up in the history of the European Union”. It was “obvious that some political groups in Parliament wanted to defend and cover up abuse by the EU Commission”. The report would not mention, for example, that the contract between Pfizer and the EU itself would continue to be withheld from Parliament or that von der Leyen would not release her SMS with the Pfizer boss.
Terhes’ three-minute speech in the Covid-U Commission, which is well worth seeing, clears up the report. For example, the report ignores the fact that the countries with the highest vaccination rates now have the highest mortality rates. That’s not the only highly explosive point the Romanian addresses:
In some cases – if you were kind to Brussels – you could read self-critical tones. Point 106 reads: The Commission urges “Member States and manufacturers to better communicate potential side effects of vaccines, in a consistent and coordinated manner, to avoid vaccine hesitancy and misinformation.” Does that mean that the propaganda of “safe and effective” would have promoted “vaccine skepticism and misinformation”? Or does that mean we should be more restrictive about “misinformation”? The next pandemic will tell. People in the EU fear foreign (foreign) disinformation; that is clear. The Empire is paranoid.
The processing from above
After all: The EMA must “improve its transparency, its communication and the availability of information about vaccines and the approval processes in order to promote public trust” (point 112). At the same time, the “joint fight against disinformation” in the summer of 2020 (!) was absolutely correct. In the summer of 2020, the mRNA treatment was still months away from approval.
Brussels should determine what is wrong and right. And what is “right” is unequivocally shown in the report: The mRNA preparations are still understood to be “safe and effective”. It is even claimed that the vaccination campaign saved 250,000 lives.
The digital green certificate is widely praised. In Orwell’s logic, one claims that the new mobility regulations would have secured “freedom of movement”. Only the “different approaches of the member states” would have “undermined the trust of the public” in the certificate (Point 134).
Covid19 was “a stress test for the democratic resilience of the EU”. The citizens would probably agree with that, but in a different sense than the EU Parliament understands. In addition, the “COVID-19 pandemic has had an accelerating effect on the changes in the direction of digital and green change” (point 3).
This is the “processing” that Brussels serves its citizens. And the next pandemic is bound to come.
Originally published on tkpSuggest a correction