Note for Legal Cases in Europe: on EU Provisions for Medical Countermeasures

Legal structures were created in the European Union echoing the US structures as evidence of the global pre-planned "plandemic" event.

This post is a technical note for ex-US legal cases. This information is for EU, but since my hunch was correct about this in EU, I encourage everyone in other parts of the world to see if you can find same provisions in all the countries that marched in lockstep.

I correspond with many people all over the world on the subjects related to the covid fraud agenda. I assist in as many legal cases as ask for my help and materials. Any possible strategy should be tried against this evil and I try to help anyone who asks for help. This post provides information for those working in Europe, and confirms that the EU planners of militarized mass murder via a pretend “health emergency” apparently had harmonized with the US counterparts in preparation for this “live exercise” (was it Pompeo who let this slip? Readers, please let me know in the comments). If this doesn’t describe globally premeditated crime, I don’t know what does.

I received the following information from a lawyer working in EU, to which I added some explanatory notes:

“We found the EU provisions corresponding more or less with the provisions in US in relation to “Medical countermeasures” in case of “natural or man-made disaster”, Sasha was always sure they exist also elsewhere in the world. We always thought that all the actions we experienced were covered by the provisions of EU law relating to conditional marketing authorisations (Note: CMA is a regulatory approval pathway in EU “almost like” a full drug approval, which was used to release the injections on the market), which we now need to learn is not the case.

Council Decision No. 1082/2013, Art. 5, laid the ground for the financing of medical counter measures. It reads:

“The institutions of the Union and any Member States which so desire may engage in a joint procurement procedure conducted pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 104(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union ( 14 ) and pursuant to Article 133 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union ( 15 ), with a view to the advance purchase of medical countermeasures for serious cross-border threats to health.”

This Decision has been repealed in the meantime by Regulation 2022/2371 of 6 December 2022.

However, in 2016 the EU enacted a Regulation (EU) 2016/369, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0369&from=EN , which provides for emergency support within the European Union. Emergency support “may be awarded through specific measures appropriate to the economic situation in the event of an ongoing or potential natural or man-made disaster.” (Art. 1 (1))  Based on a decision of the Council according to Art. 2 of Regulation 2016/369/EU “to activate the emergency support” under this Regulation, after proposal submitted by the EU Commission, the stage has been set for financing “specific measures” against threat emerging from “human made or natural disasters”. Art. 2 of this Regulation reads:

“1. The decision about the activation of the emergency support under this Regulation in case of an ongoing or potential disaster shall be taken by the Council on the basis of a proposal by the Commission, specifying where appropriate the duration of the activation.”

On 14 April 2020 this Regulation was amended by Regulation (EU) 2020/521 with retroactive effect as of 1 February 2020,  in order to extend the application of this Regulation to emergency support during Covid-19 crises.

In its Art. 1 the “emergency support under Council Regulation (EU) 2016/369” is activated.

Recital (19) reads:

“Member States have declared, as parties to the Joint Procurement Agreement referred to in Article 5 of Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, their agreement to the inclusion of ongoing joint procurement procedures under that Article in the fast-track procurement procedure established by this Regulation, under the conditions set out therein. The type of medical countermeasures to be procured and the distribution of the countermeasures to Member States should follow any agreement reached under those ongoing procedures.”

This Regulation provides for an Annex of Regulation 2016/369/EU in which it enumerates the eligible measures which may be funded in case of emergency situations. It says that the enumeration is not exhaustive and it reads:

“The following actions may be financed in case of pandemics with large‐scale effect:

(a) temporary reinforcement of the medical workforce, exchange of medical professionals, hosting foreign patients or other type of mutual support;

(b) deployment of temporary healthcare facilities and temporary extension of existing healthcare facilities to relieve pressure on existing structures and increase overall healthcare capacity;

(c) activities to support the administration of large‐scale application of medical tests and prepare the necessary scientific testing strategies and protocols;

(d) setting up temporary quarantine facilities and other appropriate measures at the Union borders;

(e) development, production or purchase and distribution of medical products;

(f) increases and conversions of production capacities for medical products as referred to in point (e) to address supply shortages;

(g) maintenance of the stock of medical products as referred to in point (e) and their disposal;

(h) actions to support the necessary steps to obtain approval for the use of the medical products as referred to in point
(e) if required;

(i) actions to develop appropriate methods to track the development of the pandemic and the results of measures
implemented to address it;

(j) organisation of ad‐hoc clinical trials of potential therapies or diagnostics according to trial standards agreed at Union level;

(k) scientific validation of medical products, including potential new testing methods.

The above list is not exhaustive.’

To my mind, lit. h) opens “the door” to any actions they assume necessary in order to achieve their goal of obtaining approval for the use of medical products. Thus, they are free to abstain from any provisions applicable to medicinal products /drugs and medical devices, to agree with their suppliers whatever they wish. Lit (j) is also very enlightening as it shows that for “ad-hoc” clinical trials they don’t apply GCP (Note: Good Clinical/ Good Manufacturing Practice laws) but their “trial standards agreed at Union level” – whatever this means.

I think this also shows the clear fraud in the European Union they committed to all citizens, giving the impression that they evaluated the injections according to existing standards for the evaluation of medicinal products at least on the basis of conditional marketing authorisations, whereas behind the scenes they were free to make whatever they desired”.

Art for today: Sheep in the Vineyard, oil on panel, 11x14 in.