European Court of Justice: Healthcare professionals who promoted or administered covid vaccines can be legally liable for any harm caused

In a groundbreaking decision that could reshape the medical landscape, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that healthcare professionals who promoted or administered covid vaccines can be legally liable for any harm caused. This ruling, announced in January 2025, underscores the profound implications of medical professionals who participated in the mass vaccination campaign, a move that has long been a source of controversy and debate within the medical community.

A prophetic warning

Back in 2020, Dr. Vernon Coleman, a noted medical writer and health freedom advocate, issued a stark warning. He foretold that doctors who prescribed the then-experimental covid vaccines would face severe legal consequences, including lawsuits and potential imprisonment. Dr. Coleman’s warning was grounded in his belief that the vaccines could cause significant harm, a stance that was met with skepticism and criticism from mainstream medical institutions.

“Back in 2020, I warned that doctors who prescribed the then-new and experimental covid-19 vaccine would likely be sued (and also imprisoned) if it turned out, as I expected, that the vaccine caused harm to those who were injected,” Dr. Coleman wrote in his new book, The End of Medicine. “I warned that doctors’ insurers would not be able to cope and that thousands of doctors would go bankrupt.”

The European Court of Justice ruling

The ECJ’s ruling validates Dr. Coleman’s predictions. The court determined that healthcare professionals had the autonomy to refuse the vaccines and, therefore, bear full responsibility for their actions. This decision has far-reaching consequences, not only for doctors but also for the broader healthcare system.

According to the ruling, doctors who urged people to be vaccinated or who administered the vaccines are both civilly and criminally liable. The court emphasized that physicians were not compelled to prescribe or administer the vaccines and thus need to take responsibility for their choices. This ruling could exonerate those doctors who opposed the vaccines or criticized them and faced disciplinary actions.

The ruling was given in case C-586/23 P, initiated by Italian physician Giovanni Frajese against the European Commission. He argued that the European Commission granted definitive marketing authorisations (MAs) for the covid vaccines, thereby exposing the doctors to potential liability for adverse patient outcomes. He sought annulment of the MAs, claiming they infringed upon his professional rights and legal standing.

In the judges’ decision, we read: “The Court determined that the MAs did not obligate physicians to prescribe or administer these vaccines. Any potential liability from adverse effects would result from personal medical decisions, not the MAs themselves.” In another paragraph: “Doctors are not liable for the general safety or efficacy of the vaccines as determined by the EMA (European Medicines Agency).” However, “Their legal responsibility pertains to their specific actions in prescribing or administering the vaccines.”

More clearly, the Court protected the EU institutions and put all the blame for the harmful effects of the “vaccines” on the doctors who prescribed them. In other words, the vaccines are “safe and efficient” by design and it is not doctor’s job to determine this, but if certain patients developed terrible side effects, it is the doctor’s liability for incorrectly evaluating the person’s condition before prescribing the jab.

It is worth noting that this ruling was kept secret by the international media. Only recently it was discovered and disseminated by few alternative means of information. However, since the snow ball started to roll, soon more and more people will find out that they have the legal grounds to sue the doctors who urged them to take the so-called “vaccine” that caused terrible harm.

The financial implications

The financial ramifications of this ruling are staggering. If patients claim severe and permanent damage from the vaccines, the potential damages could run into staggering amounts per patient. Dr. Coleman estimates that the total financial burden could bankrupt the vast majority of doctors in countries such as the U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia and the EU.

“I doubt if doctors’ insurance companies would have enough money to satisfy millions of claims (with each patient demanding maybe millions of pounds) and so the vast majority of doctors in the U.K., the U.S., Canada, Australia, the EU etc., etc., would go bankrupt” Dr. Coleman stated.

Accountability and the media

The ECJ’s ruling also raises questions about the accountability of other entities that played a role in the vaccination campaign. Dr. Mike Yeadon, a former Pfizer executive, has been vocal about his belief that the covid vaccines were “deliberately designed intentionally to injure, kill and reduce fertility.”

“If I was wrong, I would have expected the drug companies whose products I am maligning to have sought and secured a court injunction to stop me repeating these allegations,” Dr. Yeadon said. “Neither of those have ever occurred. What has occurred instead is that I have been extraordinarily censored and smeared sideways. And I think I offer that to you as strong evidence that I may be ‘over the target,’ at least in relation to these injectable products that have definitely injured and killed many people.”

Dr. Yeadon’s testimony adds a layer of complexity to the debate, suggesting that the scientific establishment and media have a role to play in the accountability process. Virtual communication platforms like YouTube and the BBC, for instance, could face legal action for censoring critical voices and suppressing vital information.

The European Court of Justice’s ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing saga of the covid vaccination campaign. It underscores the need for transparency, accountability and a re-evaluation of how medical professionals are held responsible for their actions. As the legal and financial implications unfold, the medical landscape may see profound transformation.

For now, the ruling serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of rush-to-market medical interventions and the importance of careful, evidence-based decision-making in healthcare.

yogaesoteric
April 5, 2025