Whistleblowing Belgian physcians file complaint against the Belgian National Order of Physicians due to Covid vaccines and more...
News from Belgium of whistleblowing phyiscians about patientrights, the bad Covid measures also carried out in Belgium, the Vaccine Passport violated European GDPR, no one was given informed consent about taking part of a phase 3 clinical trial of an experimental genetic injection, no one should have been coerced during Covid-19, the neglect of the elderly in Belgium (same as in many other countries where deliberate genocide of elderly was carried out). At the end of this text you will find information and links to two petitions. One is the EU Citizens initiative for informed consent as a human- and civilrights option on bodily integrity and political transparency. The second petition is the international Hope Accord petition to end the use of the mRNA injection technology.
BAM! News, Belgium: Eight Belgian doctors file a complaint against the Belgian National Order of Physicians. They denounce the actions of the Order during the COVID crisis and the vaccination campaign. They believe that the Order exceeded its prerogatives by sanctioning doctors who nevertheless respected their Hippocratic oath [1] . The eight doctors claim the status of whistleblowers and demand the immediate lifting of the abusive and unjustified proceedings initiated by the Order.
BAM invites you to read the draft quote.
DRAFT CITATION AT THE REQUEST OF
Dr Alain COLIGNON, Surgeon
Dr Stéphane RÉSIMONT (*), ENT and head and neck surgeon
Dr Frédéric GOARÉGUER, Child psychiatrist
Dr Thierry SCHMITZ, General practitioner
Dr Laurence KAYSER, Gynecologist-obstetrician
Dr Pascal SACRÉ, Anesthesiologist
Dr Eric BEETH, General practitioner
Dr David BOUILLON, General practitioner
Represented by Me Mischaël MODRIKAMEN, lawyer
I. SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST – PROTECTION AS “WHISTLEBLOWERS”
1. The Applicants request, under Article 584, al. 5, 8° of the Judicial Code, with the President of the Brussels Labor Court sitting "as in summary proceedings", the protection of the Court against reprisals emanating from the Order of Physicians of which they are victims as "perpetrators reporting” (in common parlance “whistleblowers”).
2. They have in fact denounced, in the context of internal reports to the Order and/or public reports due to risks of harm to public health, the obligation imposed on them, under penalty of disciplinary sanctions, to promote (and incidentally participate) in the vaccination campaign against the Covid virus.
3. This vaccination violated a series of European and/or Belgian legal and ethical standards. As Doctors, it was their duty to alert patients to the serious risks linked to the vaccine in terms of public health and the existence of proven and effective alternative treatments.
4. Furthermore, the vaccination campaign as organized led to a clear violation of professional secrecy and the rules of the GDPR guaranteeing the protection of personal data, due to the transmission of vaccination data to the authorities.
5. Following these alerts, the Applicants were subject to disciplinary proceedings. These lawsuits are ongoing, at one stage or another, for each of them. They cause the Applicants serious material and moral harm.
II. THE COVID CRISIS
6. The COVID crisis and the measures that were implemented constitute, in retrospect, what many consider to be the greatest medical scandal in modern history.
7. The authorities, spurred by powerful financial interests relayed by consulting companies, have promoted and implemented catastrophic policies:
– The confinement of healthy assets, the social isolation of the elderly and children, the devastation of entire sectors of the economy due to lockdowns ;
– The systematic wearing of masks or social distancing measures which were not based on any scientific data;
– The organized discrediting of proven and inexpensive treatments which nevertheless gave remarkable results;
– The promotion of vaccines, developed in a few months based on new gene technologies which had never given convincing results, whereas it takes 10 to 15 years to develop a safe vaccine!
– The corresponding award of public contracts worth hundreds of billions of euros to pharmaceutical companies under dubious conditions (see the indictment of Ms. Von Der Leyen before the Belgian justice system);
– The stifling of any dissident scientific voice immediately described as “conspiracy”. Absurd situation where young journalism graduates censored, on instructions, professors of medicine or biology from prestigious universities, even Nobel Prize winners!
8. The Applicants, like tens of thousands of other doctors and/or scientists around the world, issued warnings about what they considered to be attacks on essential principles which threatened the health of their fellow citizens.
9. They were thus faithful to their Hippocratic Oath to the end and embody what is most noble in their profession!
10. And in retrospect, the facts prove them entirely right.
11. A country like Sweden, which has never confined or practiced a lockdown, has shown epidemiological figures comparable if not better than countries which have confined their population.
12. Vaccines have proven to be generally ineffective, preventing neither transmission nor reinfection. In many cases, they have worsened the situation of vaccinated people, particularly in the face of Covid variants.
13. Serious side effects of vaccination – which many warnings had anticipated – have “exploded” in most countries that have resorted to mass vaccination.
14. The thousands of peer-reviewed studies published since then demonstrate indisputably serious and sometimes fatal side effects that have shattered many lives. ASTRA ZENECA had to withdraw its Covid vaccine from the market.
15. Countries that have carried out mass vaccination report worrying excess mortality in 2022 and 2023. A country like the United Kingdom, which keeps mortality statistics taking into account the vaccination status of deceased people, illustrates worrying excess mortality which affects vaccinated people.
16. Thus, according to these British statistics, a child vaccinated against Covid has 4,423% additional risk of dying (from all causes) and 136,333% additional risk of dying from covid compared to an unvaccinated child!
17. Finally, numerous “ peer reviewed ” studies confirm the effectiveness of proven and inexpensive therapies, yet banned following lobbying by powerful interests. The US CDC was pitifully forced to rehabilitate hydroxychloroquine.
18. Finally, lawsuits are multiplying successfully around the world against vaccine manufacturers or the “authorities” who imposed them, censors who abused their rights, etc.
III. THE LAW PROTECTING “WHISTLEBLOWERS”
19. The law of 28 November 2022 on the protection of persons who report violations of Union law or national law observed within a legal entity in the private sector now ensures the protection of “whistleblowers”.
20. It entered into force on February 15, 2023. It is of public order (article 55).
21. It transposes (with delay) the provisions of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report violations of Union law.
22. Violation of directly applicable Belgian or European legal provisions concerning (in particular) “product safety and conformity”, “public health”, “protection of privacy and personal data” (art. 2 ).
23. The law applies to private “reporters” who have denounced violations of the law (in the broad sense) in a professional context, including “self-employed workers” within the meaning of article 49 of the Treaty on functioning of the European Union (art. 6).
24. Reports, including “reasonable suspicion”, concern actual or potential violations of the law that have occurred or are very likely to occur.
25. Whistleblowers automatically benefit from protection if they had reasonable grounds to believe that the information was true at the time of the report and that they made a “report” either “internal” or “internal”. external”, or by “public disclosure”.
26. The whistleblower does not lose the benefit of protection solely because the report made in good faith turns out to be inaccurate or unfounded (article 8).
27. A person who makes a public disclosure is entitled to protection if he or she has first made an internal and external report but no appropriate action has been taken in response to the report or if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that the violation presents an imminent or manifest danger to the public interest (article 19).
28. Any form of reprisal against protected persons is prohibited, particularly in the following forms:
1° suspension, layoff, dismissal or equivalent measures;
6° disciplinary measures imposed or administered, reprimand or other sanction, including a financial sanction;
7° coercion, intimidation, harassment or ostracism;
11° damage, including damage to the person's reputation, in particular on social networks, or financial losses, including loss of business and loss of income;
14° cancellation of a license or permit (article 23 of the law).
29. The whistleblower can contact the “Federal Coordinator”, who then initiates an “extrajudicial protection procedure”, which the Applicants did.
30. The Federal Coordinator verifies the existence of a reasonable suspicion of reprisals. he requests in writing the most senior manager of the legal entity to demonstrate that the adverse action described in the complaint is not linked to the report.
31. Likewise, the authors of the report, victims of reprisal measures, can claim compensation for their damage before the Labor Court on the merits, as well as judicial protection measures against reprisals, by a request filed “as in summary proceedings” . This is therefore the purpose of this procedure!
IV. THE LAW IS OF PUBLIC ORDER AND OF IMMEDIATE APPLICATION
32. The law on whistleblowers entered into force on February 15, 2023. It is of public order (article 55) and is therefore of immediate application to current situations. It does not contain any transitional provisions on this point.
33. “Unless otherwise provided, the new law is applicable not only to situations arising after its entry into force, but also to the future effects of situations arising under the old law which occur or continue under the new law, for provided that rights already irrevocably established are not thereby infringed” (art. 1.2 of the New Civil Code).
34. In other words, proceedings undertaken by the Order or continuing after the entry into force of this law clearly fall within its scope.
35. Furthermore, the provisions of the directive, which provide protection identical to Belgian law to the whistleblower in the event of a violation of European law, had direct effect in Belgian law.
36. A Community provision benefiting from direct effect is in fact binding on the national judge who must, on the one hand, set aside the national standard which would be contrary to it, but also apply the Community standard to the dispute.
37. The Court of Justice recognizes it as having direct effect, under two conditions. The directive must be clear, precise and unconditional and the Member State must not have transposed it on time or must have transposed it incorrectly.
38. This directive was to be transposed into our law by December 17, 2021. It was not transposed until February 15, 2023. Belgium was therefore in breach on this point. The provisions of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 are also clear, precise and unconditional.
39. Furthermore, the provisions of a directive may apply directly even in the context of a dispute between private persons in the event that one of them exercises a mission of public interest and is invested with exorbitant powers under common law. This is the “oblique” effect (Simon, The Community Legal System, PUF 2001, p. 399; CJEU judgment of August 7, 2018 Smith/Meade, spec. recital 45)
40. The “oblique effect” applies in this case. The Order of Physicians indeed fulfills missions which affect the public interest.
41. Therefore, the “whistleblower” who denounces violations of standards of European law, in matters of public health or the protection of personal data had to be protected from the moment the directive was to be transposed, i.e. on 17 December 2021.
V. THE APPLICANTS ARE “WHISTLE BLOWERS”
42. Faced with the Covid pandemic, the Applicants launched internal or public alerts regarding what they considered to be violations by the Order of Physicians of essential legal principles.
43. They issued “public” alerts, addressing the media or using other means of expression (such as videos broadcast on social networks) regarding the risks to public health. These “reports” are placed in the file for each requesting Doctor.
44. The Applicants obviously acted within their professional framework, as independent or salaried doctors.
VI. STANDARDS VIOLATED
45. An opinion of January 23, 2021 on the “ethical aspects relating to the vaccination program against Covid 19” ordered doctors to promote the vaccination campaign.
» Due to the significant health benefit linked to this vaccination program, it is obvious that a strong recommendation from the doctor is the only way to contribute to the adequate prevention, protection and promotion of health, as prescribed in article 5 of the Code of Medical Ethics (CDM 2018). The Order of Physicians will ensure that doctors respect their ethical duty by taking on a pioneering role through the recommendation and promotion of vaccination.”
46. However, the promotion of such a vaccine, coupled with orchestrated campaigns against other existing therapies, posed very serious legal and ethical problems.
47. The Order in fact required doctors to promote, under penalty of ethical sanctions, a vaccination campaign carried out in violation of fundamental legal standards, thus making themselves complicit in the measures put in place by the State.
VI.1 Product safety
48. The alleged violations primarily concerned the safety of the products themselves. While it takes around ten years to develop a safe vaccine and carry out numerous studies, the Order ethically imposed the promotion of a product which had only been the subject of a few rapid and limited studies. over a few months – moreover truncated and methodologically flawed.
49. This led to the placing on the market of products potentially dangerous to health (and which turned out to be so). However, only “safe products and services” can be placed on the market (article 9.1 of the Code of Economic Law). It is a general norm of public order, punishable by criminal law (Article XV.102 Code of Economic Law).
50. Placing on the market, under such questionable conditions, and the corresponding promotion of this product imposed on doctors, also constitutes an offense (or complicity in committing an offense) of homicide or involuntary injuries through lack of foresight or precautionary measure punishable by articles 418 et seq. of the Penal Code.
51. Article 421 of the penal code states:
“Anyone who involuntarily causes illness or incapacity for work will be punished with imprisonment of eight days to one year and a fine of twenty-six euros to two hundred euros, or with one of these penalties only. personnel, by administering substances which are likely to cause death or seriously impair health.”
52. As a simple example, Pfizer vaccines were administered to pregnant women, on the recommendation of health authorities, even though no study had been carried out on this population at risk, which Pfizer does not dispute in no way.
VI.2 Absence of “informed consent”
53. The vaccines only had a one-year provisional marketing authorization and in-depth studies were still being conducted by pharmaceutical companies on the safety of the vaccine when they were massively administered.
54. From then on, vaccines against Covid should always be considered as “experimental drugs”, in “phase III” analysis.
55. However, Regulation 536/2014 relating to clinical trials of medicinal products for human use and the Belgian law of May 7, 2004 relating to experiments on humans clearly require free and informed consent in order to participate in a treatment (always) experimental as part of a clinical trial.
VI.3 Conflicts of interest and potential private or public corruption
56. Corruption, both public and private, is an offense under Belgian law (article 246 et seq. and 504bis et ter of the Penal Code).
57. However, many scientists, university professors or doctors, who discredited alternative therapies and promoted profitable vaccines for pharmaceutical companies, were often paid or benefited from advantages granted by these same pharmaceutical companies.
58. This raised the question of conflict of interest, or even public or private corruption. This highly problematic situation was also found at the level of Sciensano, the Academy of Medicine, universities and even within the Order of Physicians!
VI.4 Absence of medical prescription for the vaccine
59. Furthermore, the Applicants warned of a vaccination without a medical prescription from a doctor, who should first have carried out, as with any delivery of a prescription drug, an examination of the patient in order to determine whether the vaccination was appropriate or was not contraindicated.
60. However, issuing a vaccine without a prescription clearly violates Article 71 of Directive 2001/83/EC establishing a community code relating to medicinal products for human use.
61. Article 71 of the Directive stipulates that medicines are subject to medical prescription when they:
“are likely to present a danger, directly or indirectly, even under normal conditions of use, if they are used without medical supervision, or
are used often, and to a very large extent, in abnormal conditions of use and this risks directly or indirectly endangering health, or
contain substances or preparations based on these substances, the activity and/or undesirable effects of which it is essential to study in more detail, or
are, with some exceptions, prescribed by a doctor to be administered parenterally.”
62. The Covid Vaccine undeniably meets this description of “medicines subject to prescription”. It is therefore not surprising that Professor Lutte (who is both a doctor and a lawyer and professor of medical law at the ULB!) concluded (Vaccination, risks and efficiencies, No. 21):
If the medicinal product belongs to one of the categories referred to in Article 61 of the Royal Decree of 14 December 2006 relating to medicinal products for human and veterinary use and Article 71 of Directive 2001/83/EC (27) , it appears to us that the State cannot decide to exempt the delivery of this medication from any medical prescription. (…)
However, regarding vaccines against Covid-19, article 27, paragraph 2, of the law of June 13, 2021 relating to measures for managing the COVID-19 pandemic and other urgent measures in the field of healthcare health provides that “With regard to Covid-19 vaccines, the vaccine may be delivered to the citizen who has been summoned for vaccination by the State or federated entities, even without a medical prescription, as referred to in article 1, 22), of the Medicines Act. (…)
This legal exemption is contrary to Community law relating to medicinal products.”
VI.5 Violation of medical confidentiality
63. Furthermore, the Applicants' alerts concerned the violation of medical confidentiality, since they were obliged to provide information on the vaccination status of their patient, or to communicate personal health data to state databases. These databases in fact opened the right to the “health pass”.
64. This constitutes a violation of Regulation 2016/679 of April 27, 2016 relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data (“GDPR”).
65. The processing of data concerning health is in principle prohibited (Art. 9.1 of the Regulation).
66. By way of derogation from this principle, the processing of such data is authorized if it is necessary "for reasons of public interest in the field of public health" provided that "appropriate and specific measures to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the person concerned, in particular professional secrecy” are implemented (Art. 9.2. i of the Regulation).
67. However, the communication of vaccination data by Doctors infringes their professional secrecy. The Applicants were also joined in their reports by eminent jurists, including Mr. Poullet, President of the disputes chamber of the Data Protection Authority.
68. Other members of the Data Protection Authority have directly resigned by denouncing these violations through the state e-Health platform:
“Shattering resignation within the Data Protection Authority:
“Alexandra Jaspar, co-director of the Knowledge Center of the Data Protection Authority (DPA), announced her resignation in a letter addressed to the president of the Data Protection Authority Bedroom.
“I would really like to have achieved, through my action within the APD, that data protection is a reality in Belgium,” the co-director wrote to the Chamber. “And thus protect citizens against abusive, opaque and illegitimate uses of their personal data. I could only note, unfortunately, that the APD strives not to control what and those it should and does not protect the data but those who misuse it, as long as they are linked to the public authorities” (Le Vif of December 8, 2022):
VI.6 NON-ASSISTANCE TO PERSON IN DANGER
69. Not providing assistance to a person in danger is obviously a criminal offense (Art. 422bis of the Penal Code). Not ensuring continuity of care is contrary to the law of August 22, 2002 establishing patient rights.
70. Some Applicants have thus launched alerts about the mistreatment of elderly people, confined to their homes, who in addition to isolation, were purely and simply deprived of care and were left to their fate, sometimes awaiting death!
71. Likewise, the closure of entire hospital departments and more generally medical practices, with the Order of Physicians recommending consultation by telephone, deprived many patients of appropriate care.
VII. PLAUSABLE NATURE OF THESE REPORTS
72. The Doctors therefore had “reasonable grounds” to believe that there was a violation of Belgian and European standards in matters of public health, product safety or even the protection of personal data.
73. To do this, they based themselves on (i) what they had been taught, starting with the Hippocratic oath and the famous “Primum non nocere ” (“First, do no harm”), (ii) what they observed in their medical practice, (iii) their experience, (iv) their scientific knowledge and own analyzes of the data available or collected and (v) the work of other researchers.
74. In principle, the protection of whistleblowers does not only apply to established violations. It is acquired as soon as there is “reasonable suspicion”, concerning “actual” or “potential” violations, which have occurred or “are likely” to occur.
“Whistleblowers are protected who have reasonable grounds to believe that the information reported on violations was true at the time of reporting, that this information fell within the scope of the directive and who made an internal report, external or public disclosure. The person making the report does not lose the benefit of protection solely because the report made in good faith turned out to be inaccurate or unfounded.
75. Whether the Applicants were right or wrong is therefore completely irrelevant to the application of the whistleblower status!
76. Whether the Order of Physicians, or the judge hearing a request for protection, is of the opinion that their position was unfounded, has no bearing on the application of the whistleblower status and the legal protection which resulting.
77. The protection applies automatically, provided that the authors of the report had “reasonable” suspicions about even a “potential” violation!
VIII. EMBARRASSMENT OF THE ORDER OF DOCTORS
78. Faced for the first time with the application of the whistleblower status (in the case concerning Dr Colignon), the Appeals Council rendered a decision on May 14, 2024 which clearly demonstrates its ignorance of the scope of the law on whistleblowers and more generally of his embarrassment in the face of these new standards of public order.
79. The Order obviously cannot contest the immediate application of the legal provisions to ongoing proceedings, due to their public order nature.
80. But the Order errs when it limits its examination to the sole “alert” linked to the experimental nature of the vaccine, which requires the informed consent of each vaccinated person, concluding that this is not the case and that therefore there can be no “alert”.
81. This is to firstly ignore the fact that this question is controversial and that it is sufficient for the grievance to be "plausible", the attack "potential", or even the reasons sufficiently "reasonable", for one to is in an “alert” situation.
82. Whether the Applicants were right or wrong is in fact irrelevant to benefit from the status. The Order completely errs in resolving the grievance on the merits to exclude the protection linked to the status of whistleblower.
83. The Order demonstrates its embarrassment more generally by decreeing that the other alleged violations would be the responsibility of the State and not of the Order of Physicians, thus attempting to “wash its hands” of its own responsibilities.
84. This is to ignore, first of all, that the latter ordered doctors to promote the vaccination campaign, as it was organized by the authorities, thus making themselves complicit in violations of essential legal principles.
85. Furthermore, a number of legal violations denounced obviously fall within the remit of the Order: forcing doctors to recommend vaccination of the population, without a prescription, when the delivery of a vaccine cannot in principle take place without a medical prescription, encourages them to violate European legislation, although clear.
86. Ensuring respect for medical confidentiality is equally at the heart of the Order's skills and responsibilities. It also regularly issues ethical opinions and, where appropriate, takes disciplinary action on this issue.
87. Finally, the Order covers itself with ridicule by reducing the role of Doctors to simple “contributors” to a social debate.
88. Indeed, the Applicants are health professionals who were required by the Order of Physicians to actively participate in activities contrary to essential legal principles which touch on the very essence of their profession and their oath.
89. It is doctors in charge of the health of their patients who are subject to disciplinary sanctions, not ordinary people or polemicists who have contributed to social debates.
90. They therefore indeed acted as “whistleblowers”. The fact that others, within the medical, scientific, state world, or simply citizens, share or relay these “reports” in no way contradicts this evidence.
91. This bad faith on the part of the Order of Physicians further reinforces the need for measures to protect the Applicants, requested in the context of these proceedings.
IX. GENERALIZED AND ABUSIVE PROSECUTIONS
92. The Applicants are in fact all the subject of prosecution and for some already convicted, the proceedings being ongoing at one stage or another.
93. Disciplinary procedures are however formally prohibited against “whistleblowers”.
94. The Applicants are generally not criticized for any medical action they have performed, but only for internal “reports” and/or communicated to the public. We are therefore fully faced with the problem of a “reporter” who is the subject of proceedings, in this case disciplinary proceedings.
95. Doctors are victims of the following measures:
Dr Alain COLIGNON, Surgeon (N° INAMI 1‑55964‑12‑140),
Dr Colignon was sentenced by decision of the Hainaut Provincial Council on May 11, 2022 to a two-year suspension from practicing medicine, due to alerts launched both internally and publicly. The sentence was then annulled by the Appeals Council on January 3, 2023. Upon appeal by the Order, the appeal sentence was overturned by a cassation judgment of November 10, 2023. The case was postponed on November 9, 2023. April 2024 before the Appeals Council otherwise composed. By a decision of May 14, 2024, the Appeals Council refused whistleblower status to Dr. Colignon. The case has been set for pleadings “on the merits” before the appeals council on October 1 and 8, 2024. The proceedings against him are therefore “ongoing”
Dr Stéphane RÉSIMONT, ENT and head and neck surgeon (N° INAMI 1‑83381‑46‑410), Dr Résimont has been the subject of several disciplinary investigations. He has already filed a complaint for harassment. These initial instructions have been filed. However, the Brabant Provincial Council opened a new disciplinary investigation against him at the beginning of 2024. This is ongoing.
Dr Frédéric GOARÉGUER, Child psychiatrist (N° INAMI 1‑58132‑75‑780)
Dr Goaréguer was sentenced to 6 months of suspension by decision of the Hainaut Provincial Council of December 13, 2023 for “having undermined the confidence of the population in the healthcare institutions and doctors who respected official instructions, in particular from the National Council of the Order of Physicians.
He filed an appeal and this matter is currently pending before the Appeals Council.
Dr Thierry SCHMITZ, General practitioner (N° INAMI 1‑83900‑12‑004)
Dr Schmitz is the subject of an investigation procedure before the Instruction Commission of the Provincial Council of Brabant. This is in progress. Dr. Schmitz has since suffered burnout and has suspended his activities.
Dr Laurence KAYSER, Gynecologist‑obstetrician (N° INAMI 1‑88044‑39‑340
Dr Kayser was sentenced to 3 months of suspension by decision of the Provincial Council of Hainaut. The sanction was confirmed by decision of the Appeals Council on January 16, 2024. Dr Kayser filed a cassation appeal. The procedure is ongoing.
Dr Pascal SACRÉ, Anesthesiologist (N° INAMI 1‑58153‑54‑100)
Dr Sacré was sentenced to two months of suspension by sentence pronounced on March 8, 2023 by the Hainaut Provincial Council. By decision of the Appeals Council of January 16, 2024, the sentence was reduced to one month of suspension.
Dr Eric BEETH, General practitioner (N° INAMI 1‑07268‑14‑004),
Dr Beeth was sentenced to one month of suspension by decision of the Provincial Council of Flemish Brabant. The suspension was extended to 3 months on appeal by decision of the Appeals Council of January 31, 2022. Dr Beeth filed an appeal. The procedure is underway.
Dr David BOUILLON, General practitioner (N° INAMI 1‑56660‑92‑003)
Dr Bouillon was suspended for 9 months by decision of the Hainaut Provincial Council dated May 12, 2021, in particular due to of his reports. The decision was upheld on appeal on September 5, 2023 and is being implemented. A new disciplinary procedure has just been initiated against Dr Bouillon before the same Hainaut Council. He was summoned to appear in court on June 6, 2024. The case was postponed sine die .
X. CONNECTION OF REQUESTS
96. The Applicants are all in a similar situation, facing the Order of Physicians, the cited party. It is therefore desirable that all of their requests be processed in a single case, because of their obvious connection, which justifies a joint citation (article 701 of the Judicial Code).
97. Legal claims can in fact be treated as related “when they are linked together by such a close relationship that there is an interest in investigating and judging them at the same time in order to avoid solutions which would be likely to "be irreconcilable if the causes were judged separately" (Article 30 of the Judicial Code). This is certainly the case in this case!
FOR THESE REASONS,
PLEASE THE PRESIDENT OF THE BRUSSELS LABOR TRIBUNAL SITTING AS IN REFERENCE
Suspend any disciplinary proceedings or the execution of any disciplinary measure brought or handed down by the Order of Physicians against the Applicants, subject to a penalty of €250,000 per violation of this ban.
Order the Order of Physicians to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings
Master Mischaël MODRIKAMEN,
July 2024
Notes and sources
(*) Dr Stéphane Résimont
(**) Dr Pascal Sacré
Illustration and chapter of BAM!
[1] “As a member of the medical profession, I make a solemn commitment to devote my life to the service of humanity; I will consider the health and well-being of my patient as my priority; I will respect the autonomy and dignity of my patient; I will ensure the greatest respect for human life; I will not allow considerations of age, illness or infirmity, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social status or any another factor intervenes between my duty and my patient; I will respect the secrets entrusted to me, even after the death of my patient; I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity, while respecting good medical practices; I will perpetuate the honor and noble traditions of the medical profession; I will show my teachers, my colleagues and my students the respect and recognition due to them; I will share my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and for the advancement of health care; I will ensure my own health, my well-being and the maintenance of my training in order to provide impeccable care; I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under duress; I make these promises on my honor, solemnly, freely”
Everybody in the EU - Wake up and sign this petition for informed consent (a human- and civilright) and political transparency:
Please help to inform and sign the EU Citizens Initiative Trust and Freedom for informed consent and political transparency. The petition needs 1 million signatures before the end of November 2024.
People do not seem aware or informed about the backdrops on Covid-19 and the human rights violations (human experimentation, genetic experimentation, merger of humans with AI technology) concerning the Covid “vaccines”.
Goal
We call on the European Commission to adopt legislation that promotes freedom, openness, accountability and individual engagement within the EU. The aim is to establish and strengthen the division of powers and to ensure that the EU institutions are responsive to the needs and interests of individuals and at the same time uphold the human rights recognized in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.
1: Upholding human dignity and recognizing informed consent
We call on the European Commission to present a recommendation on a draft legislative act for the Member States in terms of defining informed consent and promoting human dignity and freedom and the right to decide over one's own body within the EU.
2: Increased openness and citizen influence
We request that the EU Commission introduce a legal act that increases transparency in and access to information about the EU's decision-making processes.
Find the petition here!
