New victories for the Patients’ Class!

Thanks to the Patients’ Class, one of the two draft bills for compulsory vaccination in the Colombian parliament was overthrown and moreover, the decree on the vaccination pass was declared null and void a few days ago!

The medical dictatorship, the DOCTATORSHIP has been shattered.

In the past months, not only have thousands supported and signed the appeal and the petition for a referendum reproduced below, but also thousands of people have spontaneously taken legal action (constitutional complaints, annulment actions, administrative actions, disciplinary actions, criminal charges, etc.), in addition to countless other actions, that is: actions of resistance and struggle. The driving force and impulse for all this: the protest out of illness. These offensive activities against the doctatorship, against the medical class and against its helpers and accomplices in the state, this expanding and spreading confrontation are the patho-practical context and the real reason for these defeats inflicted on the medical class and its doctatorship. Everywhere, also in other countries, the patients’ class is germinating and growing by virtue and the strength out of illness.

ˇComo se ve claramente,
la enfermedad sigue haciendo frente!
ˇAbajo la clase médica!
ˇAdelante la clase de pacientes!

As you can clearly see:
Illness continues to make front!
Down with the doctors' class!
Ahead with the patients' class!


SPK/PF Colombia, 15.05.2022




Popular petition for a referendum:

NO to the law on compulsory vaccination against "COVID-19"!


Dear Members of Parliament:



We, the signatories of this petition, demand that Bill No. 386 of 2021, "whereby vaccination against Covid-19 is ordered as a compulsory public health measure", be declared null and void.

In addition, we demand that Bill No. 290 of 2021 "whereby compulsory vaccination against Covid-19 is ordered" is also declared null and void.

In addition, we demand that any other Bill ordering compulsory vaccination against "Covid-19" be equally declared null and void.



(1) The above-mentioned draft bills provide for the compulsory vaccination of persons residing in Colombia against the so-called "Covid 19 virus".

(2) These draft bills are aimed at declaring the will of the patient, i.e. his or her unwillingness to undergo any medical treatment whatsoever, to be legally irrelevant.

However, the patient's declaration of will to refuse medical treatments has unconditional legal priority and must be given absolute precedence over all else. This legally binding priority of the patient's will is protected by the constitution and laws, as well as by international treaties.

(3) It is prohibited by law to order compulsory medical treatment. The patient's will takes priority as a matter of law. If a patient refuses medical treatment, whichever that may be in this case it is vaccination the patient's will must be observed under all circumstances. If the patient's will were not observed, this would constitute a criminal offence.

Attempting to forcibly vaccinate the population is a blatant violation of fundamental rights and is also a blatant violation of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This international rights agreement is binding on all states and it is an integral part of the Colombian Constitution. Article 7 of the aforementioned International Covenant explicitly prohibits medical treatment without the patient's consent, because this would be a violation of the law, constituting "torture ... cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Moreover, forced vaccination, like any forced medical treatment, blatantly contradicts the principles of Articles 5 and 6 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which affirm that any medical treatment is subject to the patient's consent.

According to international treaties and human rights declarations, as well as the Helsinki (1964), Tokyo (1975) and Lisbon (1981) declarations of the World Medical Association, all doctors worldwide are prohibited to act against the will of the patient. No doctor is permitted to impose a medical measure using coercion. Doctors are not permitted to follow any rules or laws that contradict these declarations of the World Medical Association, which are binding for all doctors, because these medical standards are legally binding for doctors and have the status of law. According to these declarations, doctors are also explicitly obliged to oppose regulations and administrative acts if they restrict the rights of patients. In particular, physicians must oppose regulations that impose coercive medical measures on the patient, and physicians must ensure that the refusal of medical measures is not interpreted to the patient's disadvantage. This is required by the above-mentioned declarations of the World Medical Association as well as the international treaties, covenants and declarations of human rights mentioned above.

(4) The Colombian Constitution and Colombian law are in line with the above-mentioned international legislation and jurisprudence, as they also explicitly protect the patient's self-determination and will, since these objects of legal protection are among the fundamental rights, such as: physical integrity and prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (art. 11 and 12 of the Colombian Constitution), freedom of conscience (art. 18 of the Colombian Constitution), right to self-determination (art. 16 of the Colombian Constitution) and others. Colombian law has explicitly established that no one may be forced to undergo medical treatment against their will (art. 10, paragraph d of Law 1751 of 2015), and likewise Colombian law strictly and explicitly prohibits doctors to carry out medical interventions without the patient's consent (art. 15 of Law 81 of 1981 – Code of Medical Ethics).

This has been repeatedly confirmed by jurisdiction of the Colombian supreme courts. For example, in its 2017 ruling T-365, the Colombian Constitutional Court confirmed and ruled that, in general, any compulsory medical treatment, i.e. any medical intervention against the patient's will, and in particular any compulsory vaccination, is unconstitutional and constitutes a serious violation of fundamental rights. In this ruling – which would not exist without the persistent struggle of the patients' class, including people affected by the vaccination – the Court explicitly points out and instructs the Colombian Ministry of Health that a doctor must prove in each individual case that he or she has obtained the patient's consent for any medical treatment, including any vaccination. The Court emphasises that "any physical intervention without [the patient's] consent constitutes one of the most serious forms of violation of the law", and it refers to one of its judgments of 1999. This legal principle, achieved through the persistent and persevering struggle of patients, has been confirmed time and again by the Constitutional Court, e.g. in judgments T-559 of 1995, SU-337 of 1999, T-1019 of 2006 and many others.

One must repeat: a medical intervention carried out with coercion, i.e. a medical measure without the patient's express consent, constitutes, as the Constitutional Court emphasises, "one of the most serious forms of violation of rights and must therefore necessarily be under prohibition".

If a doctor treats a patient without the patient's express consent, this constitutes a fundamental relationship of subordination. Therefore, this exercise of medical violence must be made a punishable offence from the outset and as a matter of priority.

Informed consent" [ = consent of the patient after being informed by the doctor: consent is only legally effective if the patient was informed before the medical treatment, i.e. that he or she was also fully informed about possible adverse effects and damages caused by the medical treatment] and respect for the patient's will are not mere formalities, but are rights of the patient and a legal obligation of the doctor towards the patient.

(5) All these laws and the court rulings to protect patients were enacted as a minimum measure of prevention, to ensure that the serious atrocities that doctors commit and have always committed against patients are never repeated. It is not without reason that part of these patients' rights, which are enshrined in international legislation, bears the name Nuremberg Code (1947). In the Nuremberg Medical Trials of 1947, doctors were sentenced, some to death, for their atrocities and killings committed against patients during the Nazi era. As a result of these trials, the Nuremberg Code was introduced.

It was precisely this Nuremberg Code that gave rise to the modern so-called informed consent, which, as already mentioned, is a legal guarantee for the patient and a mandatory requirement that every doctor must fulfil in any medical intervention. International and national legislation to protect patients stems from the fact that there was overwhelming evidence that all over the world, and not only during the Second World War and not only under the NAZI regime, but everywhere and even more recently, it were and still are doctors who used their medical arsenal to carry out forced treatments, experiments and torture as effectively as possible and to prevent the death (often the last option of the tortured!) of the abused torture victims only to torture them again in order to obtain more information.

Forced sterilisation, experiments with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, the use of human guinea pigs for medical-military and/or medical-commercial experiments etc. etc. etc., – the series of crimes committed by doctors and their trail of blood, the blood of patients, could be continued endlessly.

Surprising? In 2012, the "German Medical Congress" published its so-called "Nuremberg Declaration 2012". The occasion was the 65th anniversary of the Nuremberg medical trials in 1947, when doctors were accused of having organised and carried out the experiments and mass murder of patients ("Action T 4", 275,000 patients murdered by starvation, through killing by gas, by petrol injections).

In the "Nuremberg Declaration 2012" (adopted by the "German Medical Assembly" only reluctantly, at a distance of 65 years, but then finally adopted under public pressure) it is admitted that the worst atrocities and crimes against humanity (including the mass murder of patients) during the NAZI regime were committed by their colleagues, the doctors, members of the medical association.

With regard to the medical doctors' authorship of the mass murders of patients, it is important not to forget that the doctors carried out these murders on their own initiative, on a mass scale and almost with enthusiasm, which could not be concealed in the declaration of the "German Medical Assembly", nor could the fact that the perpetrators of these crimes ranged from ordinary doctors to the medical leaders of the medical associations and the medical universities.

Black sheep of a distant past? Not at all! In a vain attempt to redeem itself, a renowned medical journal recently succinctly confessed that "medicine during the Nazi era is not a matter of the distant past. The historical evidence is that the thinking, values and activities of health professionals and biomedical researchers in this context are but extreme manifestations of problematic possibilities inherent in medicine generally" (The Lancet, Issue 10277, 6 March 2021, page 862)

These are the confessions of the medical doctors themselves.

(6) It was the pressure of international public opinion when faced with these medical cruelties that led to the adoption of the above-mentioned Helsinki, Tokyo and Lisbon Declarations, which prohibit all doctors worldwide to act against the will of patients and to use coercive medical measures. It was the protest of those affected, the relatives of those maimed and murdered, those abused and affected but not defeated by the cruelty of doctors, which achieved that they got justice and that these rights could be enforced for evryone, including the right that the will of the patient has the highest legal priority. This has set limits to the arbitrariness of doctors and created at least a minimum of control.

It is therefore everyone's duty and in everyone's own interest to prevent these rights from being taken away from the population. Any yielding to the doctors' quest for power would mean giving up hard-won ground. Not only would the most basic civil rights and minimal legal protections against authoritarianism and medical tyranny be removed. Rather, it would have deadly consequences for patients, because people would pay for it with their lives.

It is not a matter of narrow private interests, but it is a matter of supreme public and general interest that the fundamental rights that have been fought for and that protect the lives of patients are preserved. It needs this wall of protection against the doctors who otherwise think they can – with impunity – do whatever they want. Therefore: The Patients' Class is the first duty of a citizen!

(7) With regard to the vaccines against the so-called "Covid19 virus", the following should be noted in particular:

(7.1.) These vaccines were approved according to an accelerated, i.e. time-shortened, procedure. They do not have a regular approval by INVIMA (Colombian National Institute for the Supervision of Medicines and Food), but only a temporary and conditional emergency approval. However, even for this vaccination – which is only authorised by an emergency procedure – the requirement that the patient must be informed and agree applies just as much and to the same extent.

Furthermore, it is known that governments have signed liability exemption clauses in favour of multinational pharmaceutical companies. This is to ensure that these pharmaceutical companies are not liable for the damages and deaths caused by their vaccines.

(7.2.) The fact that these vaccines can cause serious harm is recognised by the medical doctors themselves. Numerous harms have been reported after vaccinations [see the websites of the US CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the EMA (European Medicines Agency)]. The following harms have been documented:

Headache, muscle pain, fever, nausea, kidney damage, life-threatening allergies (anaphylaxis), inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis) and pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane surrounding the heart), transverse myelitis (neurological damage to the spinal cord), the so-called thrombosis syndrome with thrombocytopenia (clotting damage and blood clots that can be fatal), the so-called Guillain-Barré syndrome (paralysis that rises from the lower limbs and can lead to complete paralysis and even death) – and who knows what else there is by now? ! The medium and long-term effects are not known, as it takes at least 5 years to conduct such studies.

From a legal and penal point of view, such damages are to be considered as serious bodily injury and manslaughter.

Coincidences? Do the MPs believe in "coincidences"? We don't.

In no case can the legislator give its blessing to a medical measure, let alone order it, if its effects are completely uncertain and even serious physical damage and the death of patients are to be expected.

It is not a matter of admonishing prudence and caution, for there is a legally enshrined protective duty on the part of the legislature and the authorities. That this duty is complied with is the least that needs to be done. In view of the uncertainty as to which damages can be expected and to what extent, and the countless reports of adverse effects, it is advisable for every patient to be cautious and to refrain from being vaccinated, because the risk of blind trust in the doctor can lead to death or serious injury. No one should be exposed to such a risk.

In any case, the final decision in this regard does not lie with any authority and certainly not with a doctor. It lies solely with the patient: It is about his or her life and physical integrity – in legal terms: the patient's will is legally paramount and must be given priority.

(7.3.) As already mentioned, it will take at least 5 years before any predictions can be made about how the vaccines work, and it is currently impossible to estimate their medium- and long-term effects. But there are already countless case reports about adverse effects. Should the population therefore be turned into guinea pigs and laboratory rats with these draft bills, which are solely for the benefit of doctors and their pharmaceutical businesses? Indeed. This cannot be tolerated. It is highly illegal and a blatant violation of the fundamental rights of the population.

(7.4.) It is presented as if vaccination were voluntary. However, this supposed voluntariness of vaccination is immediately dropped when people choose not to be vaccinated. These people are then punished with the loss of their rights and they are excluded from access to recreational and cultural venues, threatened with labour sanctions up to and including being fired, quarantined and other restrictions. People are thus discriminated against and marginalised, and they are deliberately subjected to pressure in order to be vaccinated. If pressure and indirect coercion is applied, it is a mockery to speak of free and voluntary consent.

The mere fact of being forced to disclose one's vaccination status to third parties in order to gain access to a public place is a blatant violation of the right to confidentiality regarding medical history data ( these data are protected by the fundamental right to privacy). This right is a safeguarding right for patients. It had to be enshrined in law, among other reasons, to prevent patients from being stigmatised, discriminated against and abused.

In addition, medical confidentiality must be strictly observed by doctors. If this right of patients is violated, it is the doctors who must take action against such regulations, which they are legally obliged to do (see paragraph 3 of this petition).

(7.5.) Let's take as an example the way mass vaccinations are carried out, e.g. the recent "voluntary" vaccination campaign against "Covid-19": It is well known that people in so-called health centres have to line up to be vaccinated one after the other. No allergy test is done before vaccination. But only this could determine whether someone is allergic to one or more components of the vaccine. No, nothing like that. The vaccination is done as if on an assembly line and the so-called informed consent is thus reduced to an empty formality and it is thus ineffective.

In addition, it is to be expected at any time that due to someone's specific physical condition he or she will suffer a severe anaphylactic shock, which can be fatal (respiratory arrest), or one of the other serious and/or fatal vaccination effects that are documented in the medical literature itself.

Must the population accept this without complaint and have no choice but to ultimately join the statistics of foreseeable "collateral damages" that are the effects of vaccination? Doesn't everyone have the right to act prudently and to consider possible – known! – damages in advance, i.e. to protect themselves from damages, that means not to get vaccinated in the first place, if there is a possibility that the vaccination could result in serious bodily injury, even death as a foreseeable consequence! Those who refuse to be vaccinated have the right on their side. Indeed, it is not only a pure matter of course, but a guaranteed right that the patient's will not to be harmed must be observed by every doctor.

The Vaccination Act cannot abrogate this fundamental and constitutional right. No one can be forced to risk being seriously injured or even killed on any pretext or because they are being persuaded that what they are being given is good for them.

Anyone who is earmarked as a sacrifice for the altar of a lethal medicine has every right to resist by any means.

(7.6.) Yesterday it was still said that vaccination was "voluntary". Today, pressure is already being exerted and those who are unwilling to get vaccinated are threatened with losing their rights and being discriminated against and excluded. Next, it will be made compulsory to be vaccinated and this will be forcefully put into practice.

Is this a medical response because there is so much protest and so many are radically refusing to grovel and submit to the vaccination diktat?

Is it therefore a measure to hold down and punish those patients who insist on their self-determination and assert their will against the doctor? In fact, it is.

(7.7.) The harmful and deadly outcomes of the vaccination campaign are predictable: Here, too, there will be deaths and mutilations, so-called "collateral" damages of vaccinationfor which doctors are primarily responsible, by action or omission, regardless of whether they are present at the vaccination site or not. This is because doctors have the legal obligation as guarantors to prevent harm to patients: The doctor bears primary responsibility for every medical intervention.

Does the legislatur shamelessly intend, in advance, to exempt doctors from criminal, civil and disciplinary liability for possible serious and fatal bodily injury and instead forcibly place the burden on the injured parties? Isn't it a downright irresponsibility and doesn't it put patients in the greatest danger when governments not only exempt vaccine manufacturers from contractual liability but also want to forcibly shift the burden of vaccine damage onto the injured parties?! Will legislators submit to all this and put the rule of medicine and the profits of the medical industry above the law?

When it is claimed that the vaccine is "free", this is nothing but whitewashing and fraud. This is intended to confuse the population and conceal the fact that the vast sums that are now being thrown down the throats of the medical corporations by the government were previously extracted from the population by means of permanent wage confiscation (so-called taxes). The population has already bled (financially) and now it has to bleed once more and to die as guinea pigs in an imposed medical experiment.

However, forced vaccinations are forbidden by law and constitutional law and this has to stay that way. The legal priority of the patient's will is of the highest public and general interest, i.e. in the interest of EACH AND EVERYONE. The private profit interests of the medical profession and the medical-pharmaceutical industry must step back in the face of this.

(8.) Whoever chooses not to be vaccinated is NOT a danger to others. But that one is punished if one doesn't get vaccinated and is forcibly subjected to compulsory medical treatment based on dangerous assumptions that harm the social community is clearly illegal and unconstitutional in any case.

(8.1.) Fortunately, the majority of the population has now developed to some extent the ability to digest and metabolise the medical poison that is circulating. This is thanks to illness, which is the only real and effective immune system to defend against the harmful effects of iatro-capitalism. This is especially true when illness is patho-practised and the protest inherent in illness is purposefully directed outwards against this harmful and deadly iatro-capitalist system.

(8.2.) Just from the very limited medical perspective that assumes a so-called "immune system", doctors have had to acknowledge in their literature that the immunity they call "natural" offers much greater protection than that which they attribute to their vaccines – although instead of "natural immunity" it should more correctly read:

Those who activate and transform their illness into action and are thus invigorated (get their strength out of illnesssind gut bei Krankheitskraft) are better able to cope with external irritants, even in the form of a virus.

This is an admission that their vaccines have failed, when they now have to confess that their vaccines do NOT protect those who are vaccinated. To distract from this, those who do not get vaccinated are marginalised and isolated.

It is obvious: If the vaccines really had the effect claimed by the vaccination ideologists, then all vaccinated people would be completely safe and protected and no vaccinated person would have to fear infection from anyone!

But because vaccination – in spite of all medical propaganda – does not offer any protection, there is a campaign against the unvaccinated. In order to divert attention from the total bankruptcy of the vaccination ideologists, the unvaccinated are medically blamed for the disease and built up as a "danger". This is as factually unfounded as it is illegal (hate speech: incitement to discrimination and exclusion).

The medical class as a whole uses the fight against illness as a mere pretext. As a pretext, because it is not the causes of illness that are targeted (see below), but the patients, by falsely accusing them of "endangering public health". In this way, the population is divided and turned against each other, while the doctors are off the hook. Divide et impera? That is obvious.

(8.3.) It is a dangerous assertion and only a pretext that in order to "protect public health" it would be necessary to compulsorily vaccinate everyone and that those who refuse would have to reckon with further coercive and punitive measures by the state. This punishment is preceded by the branding and social ostracism of those who refuse vaccination: it is asserted that they are a danger as a potential "source of infection". Such punitive measures, which are merely based on the completely made-up ASSUMPTION that this – merely assumed – danger could perhaps materialise at some point in the future, are absolutely forbidden in the legal system. A merely assumed, abstract risk is not a concrete danger that must be averted. This was stated by the Constitutional Court, for example, in its ruling C-040 of 2006: It is against the constitution to decree compulsory medical measures "based" on nothing other than a merely hypothetical, merely assumed danger projected into a distant future. Such assumptions, such almost paranoid medical hypotheses, are highly dangerous because they aim to punish people now for the sole reason of assuming that they might become a danger to someone or something at some point in the future.

Under the pretext of illness, punishments are imposed – discrimination, exclusion from society, etc. (see above). And this – forbidden ! discriminatory treatment is directed against all who could become ill. So against EACH AND EVERYONE.

No punishment without law (nulla poena sine lege). This most basic legal maxim is being undermined by the medical class. When the medical class is in charge, someone is punished without there being a law, without there being a "crime". The mere assertion by a doctor that there is a possibility of someone becoming ill is enough to set punitive measures in motion. Isn't that a HEILs(HEAL)- dictatorial declaration of war against everyone?

Those who are not vaccinated are not a danger. On the contrary, the division of the population and the incitement against the part of the population that has not been vaccinated is a great danger for all, as every incitement and the exclusion and discrimination of parts of the population in history has shown: it only serves to maintain medical power, the power of the medical class, and thus EACH AND EVERYONE are put in mortal danger.

(8.4.) The cause of illness is not the sick person, but it is the damaging and murderous iatro-capitalist (economic, social and political) relations.

No one becomes seriously ill and ends up in a so-called intensive care unit simply because they have come into contact with the medical poison that is circulating. Medical poison: even the official medical literature does not dare to rule out the possibility that it originated in a medical laboratory. In any case, it was and is used as a poison against the population: The "virus" as a HEALTH- ideological pretext for repressive medical-police measures.

In fact, someone ends up on an intensive care unit because their body has been exploited, worn out, weakened and ruined on a daily basis for years, because they are forced to live constantly in biological, chemical, radioactive and other filth produced by the iatro-capitalist industry and, last but not least, because they have to breathe in the deadly air pollution (more than 7 million are killed every year by air pollution, which is admitted in the official medical literature without the slightest shame and has never led to any practical consequences).

Many are also forced to eat a miserable diet of food and drink crammed with no less harmful additives, all in the interests of the cannibalistic hunger for surplus value and to the detriment of all.

This is medically approved and declared harmless by health and occupational health certificates from doctors who conceal all these damages, and patients are constantly thrown into the jaws of wage slavery, where they are exploited to the last drop of blood.

If someone is made ill and therefore cannot continue to work, the doctors treat them. That means: they repair the sick labour commodity. In addition to the damage caused by exploitation, there is also the damage caused by therapy, i.e. the damage caused by the doctor. One part of the body is medicated and the sickness soon reappears in another part of the body. These therapies serve no other purpose than to put the patients back into the condition of being further exploited and re-exposed to the same disease-causing reality, where they accumulate more and more damage, under the same blows that have already finished them off before.

Exploited and exhausted, worn down and then sedated with medication, one is gradually robbed of the strength to cope with external irritants. Held down and rendered defenceless, one is easy prey for everything that attacks from the outside. The weakened body is unable to metabolise and cope with this medical poison called coronavirus (Latin virus = poison), which falls on fertile ground in a medically botched body.

It would be better to have learned in good time to come to terms with illness, to make use of its help, in order – instead of swallowing everything – to direct illness outwards as a protest, together with others, against the conditions that cause illness and those responsible for it.

All these accumulated damages (a consequence of exploitation and oppression) are glossed over by the doctors as "concomitant diseases". This in turn serves to conceal the social, i.e. the iatro-capitalist origin of illness, with which the doctors try to evade their responsibility (guarantor position!), some by doings, some by omissions. Instead of taking action against these iatro-capitalist causes of illness, the medical class constantly renews and reinforces this damaging connection.

To make matters worse, the already damaged patients are medi-cynically blamed for "their" illness. They are hounded, discriminated against and marginalised, with the false claim that they are a "danger to public health". This medical fabricated hostility towards patients, this incitement to eradication, has even led to some people shamelessly claiming that the "unvaccinated" are "potential murderers"! This is the direct consequence of the racism unleashed by doctors against the sick, it is the direct and deadly consequence of their iatro-racism.

(8.5.) . And who is not ill in the midst of a harmful and deadly reality like iatro-capitalism? Everyone is ill because we are all forced to live under these pathogenic, harmful and deadly conditions. Anyone and everyone can become acutely ill at any time. That must be reckoned with at all times. Because capitalism does not exist without illness. Diverting attention from this and scapegoating others is discrimination that everyone must oppose.

Discrimination in general is highly illegal. Discrimination on the basis of illness is the basic and typical form of discrimination, which, as already known and mentioned above, led to the worst atrocities during National Socialism, but also at other times and in other places.

In this context, it is not superfluous to remind the legislator of the following: At the beginning of the 20th century, forced vaccination was used by the Supreme Court in the USA as a precedent to legalise forced sterilisations! These forced sterilisations were carried out in the USA until the 1970s(!), based on these sterilisation laws, which were aimed precisely at patients branded by doctors as a "danger to public health". In the words of this Supreme Court: "The principle of compulsory vaccination has been given such a broad meaning that it also covers the cutting of fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough" (US Supreme Court 1927, Buck v Bell). These American sterilisation laws were praised by the Nazis and they incorporated them directly into their so-called laws on racial HYGIENE.

But you don't have to go that far away. Here in Colombia, however, things have ended differently: Recently, the legal priority of the patient's will and the prohibition of compulsory medical treatment had to be ratified again by the Law 1996 of 2019, to the point that the so-called incapacitation (guardianship) was abolished. This 2019 Act was introduced in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with So-Called 'Disabilities'. This UN Convention of 2006 was directed against medical crimes: Doctors had diagnosed patients as "mentally disabled" and then forcibly sterilised them. This medical practice of forced sterilisation also existed in Colombia, an openly eugenic and totalitarian practice that had once even been approved by Colombia's highest courts. But the 1996 Law of 2019 put a stop to these crimes, which bore the mark of the medical class. This was achieved by the patients affected, who didn't give up and fought tenaciously.

Does that still sound far-fetched? "Conspiracy theory"?

What is theoretical about a so-called "conspiracy theory" when pathopractice has confirmed it point by point? Nothing.

Again: if compulsory vaccination, i.e. vaccination against the expressly declared unwillingness of the person concerned, is declared legally permitted, and if there is such a law, the way back to the darkest times of history with its medical crimes is opened. Such a law removes the obstacles that have so far stood in the way of this development and one of these obstacles is the fundamental rights fought for by the patients' class.

(9.) To sum up: There is the fundamental right to life and the fundamental right to physical integrity. Any forced vaccination is an interference with the fundamental right to bodily integrity and punishable as grievous and dangerous bodily harm and as attempted murder. No one can be forced and coerced to let vaccinations harm or kill them.

The issue here is a vaccination that

·       is useless and not needed (those who refuse to be vaccinated do not constitute a danger)

·       is not tested (the vaccine is not regularly licensed. Usually at least 5 years are needed to test the medium-term effects of a vaccine

·       turns the vaccinated into guinea pigs: with the forced mass vaccinations there are now carried out those test series that should have been carried out long before the vaccinations

·       causes serious harm (see the increasing reports of serious and even fatal effects after vaccination)

·       is rejected by countless people, i.e. en masse

·       is compulsorily enforced by means of a vaccination campaign and which segregates those who refuse to be vaccinated and banishes them from social life. The free and self-determined decision of these people is illegally ignored and their physical integrity (protected by legal guarantees) is illegally interfered with

·       Restricts forcibly the fundamental rights of the population.



The doctors in the respective health offices, hospitals, health centres and in the associated vaccination brigades are the perpetrators of the damages caused by vaccination, i.e. it is them who are primarily responsible for the damages caused to the civilian population. The doctors' responsibility under criminal and civil law follows from their legally regulated guarantor status. This fact is as obvious as it is clearly regulated by law. To deny it would be to make oneself an accomplice in medical crimes and would potentiate this injustice. And this is exactly what the Congress wants to do!

So, what is this? Is this another step towards the seizure of power by the medical class?

Another step towards consolidating their domination over the people?

DOCTATORSHIP? Yes, indeed.

Is this compatible with the statutory function of the Congress or is this not rather the disempowerment of the Congress by the medical class? Are we allowing the doctors to overthrow the legislatur? The legislatur is not obliged to submit to the doctors' claim to power. On the contrary, he is obliged to make the interests of the people alone the maxim of his action and he must oppose all attempts at usurpation.

What is to be done?

Everyone must know this:

Whosoever vaccinates against the will of the patient notwithstanding all this,

who promotes compulsory vaccination,

who makes organisational preparations in order to implement the vaccination by force,

is liable under civil and criminal law for the bodily injuries and deaths caused by vaccination, liable for unlawful coercion, bodily injury and murder on a mass scale.

Those who act in this way pose a public danger and wage war against their own people. The perpetrators must be arrested and placed in solitary confinement. There is a danger of suppression of evidence.

This is what the population, i.e. what everyone can do, now immediately and as a minimum: denounce the doctors and their accomplices to the public prosecutor's office so that criminal proceedings are opened and the perpetrators are prosecuted for coercion, grievous bodily harm and attempted murder.

Explicit demand to the members of Congress:

The least that members of Congress need to do by law now: 

Oppose the "Covid-19" forced vaccination bill and bring it down.






SPK/PF MFE Colombia


Many thousands have signed this petition and this popular initiative. Here on the internet, the lists with the signatures are not attached.





                                                                                                       SPK/PF MFE Colombia, 19.04.2022


Translation into English: SPK/PF MFE Greece

SPK/PF(H), 27.05.2022